I was looking on YouTube, as you do, and came across this video made by a guy who is clearly an atheist.
He has gone through his arguments systematically, logically and stated why God DEFINITELY does not exist...however, although I appreciate a good debate and like to hear all sides of an argument, I do not have much time for people who pull apart other beliefs when their argument has a clear major flaw!!
The main problem I have with this video is the presumption that God is made of matter - that in order to exist He has to be made of something that we can tangible touch and experience physically.
'Existence is a relatively simple concept -- it is defined as that which consists of either matter or energy. Therefore if a god exists, it must be composed of either matter or energy.' (!!)
This is such a leap in argument and is only in the first two sentences! He is saying that if God is to exist He has to be made of something that we understand to be the building blocks of creation...fine, if God was part of the creation and not the CREATOR! I find that this, as a sentence, is incredibly egotistical; the idea that because we cannot conceive of something above and beyond humanity - then it cannot be real!
'If a god exists, then physical evidence is really the only methodology by which we can ascertain that a god exists. Of course, this does not require direct physical evidence...
Evidence is defined as that which impacts our physical senses in some manner, either directly, or through some translating device such as a spectrograph or an oscilloscope.'
This statement when viewed together is completely contradictory...the author states that physical evidence is needed to PROVE God exists and then says that direct physical evidence isn't needed as proof of existence... he uses the idea of blackholes that he knows to exist although he has never seen them(!!) because of their effect or impact upon matter. Hmmmmm...I am trying not to come over as sarcastic and am failing miserably...surely his belief that blackholes exist has to be taken, in part, on faith, as he has never seen one for himself and yet he states it like they are fact and cannot be disproven. To further back up his claim he then defines evidence...'that which impacts out physical senses in some manner'...HOLD UP!!
Why then are the healings that people have experienced and WITNESSED and the sensory perception of God's presence not in themselves evidence by this definition? It certainly seems to me that they could be. In my limited experience, the presence of God has many impacts upon someone's physical state, they are overcome and feel Him! That seems to me to show that God is able to affect matter by His presence and His 'energy'.
As the author states, we do indeed determine the existence and non-existence of things through the evidence of our senses, this is the only way we can after all. So I think that it is a little unfair for the author (referring to God) to then go on to say,
Christianity does not say that there is no way to detect God, for God is always present, we are able to feel Him and experience Him through prayer, through asking Him into our lives and troubles and through the Holy Spirit.
Here is the major flaw in the argument...to think of God within our own meager experience, within human terms is to miss the majesty of the creator completely. Of course we try to understand God on our own terms...referring to 'Him', His 'hands' working the potter's wheel, His 'eyes' as a way of showing that He sees and is aware of us...none of these things really mean that He looks like a human and is in fact a being in any sense that we have seen or understood before. It is merely our very basic way of trying to understand that which is in part inconceivable and would remain so if not for experiencing God!
Overall, there is much to say about this author and I could go on... but I will finish here and state instead that although he believes that he has offered a tight, logical argument for the non-existence of God, he has in fact produced a weak one because of the major flaw of believing that God is anything but the awesome, higher lifeforce that He is. Instead, trying to belittle Him by confining Him to our own very narrow understanding of creation from a human point of view proves nothing except that the author is too caught up in his own self importance, unable to think that something could be 'above' him.
Why then are the healings that people have experienced and WITNESSED and the sensory perception of God's presence not in themselves evidence by this definition? It certainly seems to me that they could be. In my limited experience, the presence of God has many impacts upon someone's physical state, they are overcome and feel Him! That seems to me to show that God is able to affect matter by His presence and His 'energy'.
As the author states, we do indeed determine the existence and non-existence of things through the evidence of our senses, this is the only way we can after all. So I think that it is a little unfair for the author (referring to God) to then go on to say,
'If I argue that something exists, but then claim there is no way to detect it, my argument contradicts itself'
Christianity does not say that there is no way to detect God, for God is always present, we are able to feel Him and experience Him through prayer, through asking Him into our lives and troubles and through the Holy Spirit.
'If a god exists, then sensual evidence of some sort is required to determine the existence of that god. If a god is not made up of matter or energy, then that god does not exist, since that which is not composed of matter or energy -- does not exist.'
Here is the major flaw in the argument...to think of God within our own meager experience, within human terms is to miss the majesty of the creator completely. Of course we try to understand God on our own terms...referring to 'Him', His 'hands' working the potter's wheel, His 'eyes' as a way of showing that He sees and is aware of us...none of these things really mean that He looks like a human and is in fact a being in any sense that we have seen or understood before. It is merely our very basic way of trying to understand that which is in part inconceivable and would remain so if not for experiencing God!
Overall, there is much to say about this author and I could go on... but I will finish here and state instead that although he believes that he has offered a tight, logical argument for the non-existence of God, he has in fact produced a weak one because of the major flaw of believing that God is anything but the awesome, higher lifeforce that He is. Instead, trying to belittle Him by confining Him to our own very narrow understanding of creation from a human point of view proves nothing except that the author is too caught up in his own self importance, unable to think that something could be 'above' him.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment