Atheist Objections

[IamOdd4God]

But, as someone who has never felt Belief or felt any need to feel it in my entire life, I am not so sure if it’s a ‘choice’ per se.

Let me ask you: If belief is not a choice, what would it be?

Even among the most rigorous and inquisitive scholars, and the most willing followers, some people seem to be inclined to Faith and some simply do not seem to be so inclined. I often wonder if our minds actually work differently sometimes, or perhaps the same stimuli trigger a slightly different set of responses among those who Believe and those who do not.

This is where it get’s tricky, because as similar as belief and faith are to one another, they are not the same thing. A person can believe in what the Bible says, but not place their faith in what the Bible says. I know that sounds contradicting, but it really isn’t; it is possible for someone to have belief, but not faith. Jesus said not everyone who calls Him Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 7:21-23) James tells us that even the devils believe and tremble (James 2:19).

I never chose to disbelieve, nor to believe in a deity. The entire question makes precious little sense to me, honestly, and not from a lack of wit or imagination either.

Okay, here is the thing; you never chose to disbelieve or to believe in God, but it comes back to being your choice, because you chose not to believe. By choosing not to believe makes you a non-believer, and you will be judged as a non-believer.

Now I have been told that what I’m about to say is nothing more than a scare tactic used to scare people into believing in God, but this is not a scare tactic; it is a “TRUE” fact…

One day you and I both will die (may that day not be anytime soon); it’s a fact of life. When we die either the Bible will hold true or it will prove to be false. If the Bible proves to be false, then you as a non-believer will have nothing to worry about. However, if the Bible proves to be true, then you as a non-believer will have a serious problem that will last for all eternity.

Hopefully though, given our kind wishes towards one another, this need not make us enemies.

If I were your enemy, I would not be concerned for your soul.

In the name of Jesus,

Ken

 

[Benedictus]

Let me ask you: If belief is not a choice, what would it be?

I think that a lot of atheists view choosing to believe in God like choosing to believe in Santa Claus. Sure, a person could decide one day simply to believe in Santa, but most people can’t make that choice because the non-existence of Santa is so obvious. Likewise, an atheist views the non-existence of God as so obvious that he can’t simply choose to believe.

 

[tdgesq]

I just wanted to clarify what I think Smith is trying to say, which gives me a bit of trouble. First, in terms of Natural Theology, it is self defeating, if not self-contradictory, to demand an explanation for nature since nature is our only point of reference for explaning anything.

Smith’s argument here is confusing for a number of reasons. First, he doesn’t define what he means by nature. If he means every ontological reality, then by definition he at the outset excludes the existence of anything supernatural. But sitting in your ivory tower and excluding by definitional fiat the very thing you are trying to disprove is the height of arbitrariness.

Even more puzzling to me is his jump from ontology directly to an epistemic conclusion. Even theists would agree that ontologically we find ourselves in a universe that obeys certain natural laws and principles. We may even presuppose some of them. But how does he reach the conclusion that utilizing those principles we can’t know anything about the reality of nature? Surely he doesn’t mean that we can’t know anything about nature, since we obviously know many things about the natural universe in which we live. If he means there are only certain things about nature that we can’t know, what is his criteria for such a claim? Again, it appears arbitrary to me.

What we do know is that he claims we can’t know about the existence of nature. Again, what part of nature he’s talking about I don’t know. He surely can’t mean that we don’t know anything about the existence of nature. What he really seems to be saying is that we can’t know what the ultimate cause of the universe is. This again suffers from the same problems of arbitrariness and leaping from an ontological claim to an epistemic claim; but putting both of those things aside for the moment, the fact is that inquiries and discoveries have been made with respect to this question by both theists and non-theists, without any supernatural explanation.

What are we to make of the big bang theory or the multiverse theories for the existence of our universe? How about the use of logical principles to discover that an actual infinite cannot exist, like in the Kalam Cosmological Argument? You might disagree with one or all of these theories and arguments. But to say they haven’t given us any insight - indeed, can’t give us any insight - into the existence of our universe is absurd in my opinion.

Smith wants to say that it just exists, but that we can’t know why it exists, even though he hasn’t proven that point. He also says that there isn’t any reason it exists, but he contradicts himself. By his own admission he can’t know whether there is a reason it exists or not. There may be a reason; it just can’t be known by us through the use of natural reason according to him. Any thoughts?

 

[utunumsint]

I think that a lot of atheists view choosing to believe in God like choosing to believe in Santa Claus. Sure, a person could decide one day simply to believe in Santa, but most people can’t make that choice because the non-existence of Santa is so obvious. Likewise, an atheist views the non-existence of God as so obvious that he can’t simply choose to believe.

The Catholic church maintains that belief in God is surely provable by reason and open to all cultures, however, faith in the Christian God is a gift. We can use our reasons to try an understand our faith (faith seeking understanding). This is called Theology.

If you don’t have the gift of faith, then theology can’t make much sense to you. However, according to the Catholic church, we all receive sufficient grace to obtain salvation, so eventually in everyone’s life, they should be able to make, at least, one real descision for or against God. The grace that enables us to make a descision is not in our control, but we do have it in our control to reject or accept that grace. It is possible, that our confirmed Athiest has simply never received that grace, and may not receive it until the final minutes of his or her life on earth. But there will be a free choice made at some point, and he or she will be judged for it.

Ut