Sunday, 26 July 2009

Evident Evidence?


So, apparently some apologists think that we all have enough evidence to be convinced that god exists. Yet, it's demonstrable that this is not the case. Just look at the presence of atheists or non Xians, and this assertion is clearly false, unless one wants to try and argue that all non-Xians really believe in god but are denying it for whatever reason, which is clearly absurd. If we had the evidence that we need, we would all believe. Plus, god, being omniscient and all, would know what we all need in order to believe. So, god can't claim that we have what we need, especially when he knows that we don't.

The apologist might object, however, that god can't give us the evidence we need as it would violate our free will. But, isn't that exactly what theists try to do when trying to convince others of god? Isn't the theist trying to give us the argument that we need to come to god? Is that a violation of our free will? I don't think anyone would claim that the theist is violating the atheist's free will by arguing for god. Then why would one claim that if god gave us that information it would somehow be a violation of our free will? This is a case of special pleading.

So, bottom line is that god has made an error in the Bible by claiming something that is not true. Actually, worse than that, if god really is omni-max, then god has lied. Of course, in reality, it's just another example of how the Xian myth simply doesn't make sense.

(P.S. "Acedemics" indeed.)

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

You know, I'm gonna let you go. This has been a good opportunity to witness, and I'm gonna leave it at that. There's more important things I can be doing for God's glory than arguing with you here. Mock Jesus Christ now, but you will bow to him later. Sad thing is, I won't get any joy saying "I told you so" on that day.

GCT said...

"Mock Jesus Christ now, but you will bow to him later."

Yay, threats!

"Sad thing is, I won't get any joy saying "I told you so" on that day."

If you are in heaven, then you'll have to be happy about it, else heaven is falsified. Oh well, one more inconsistency to put on the list.

ethinethin said...

This has been a good opportunity to witness


Yes I'm sure you've converted thousands of heathens. Next stop: China, where there are a billion people who look at your religion the same way you look at the superstitions of ancient Greece. I hear they have good rice. Have fun on your journey!

Tigerboy said...

How funny is it that Coach McDaniel has made a sign that places "academics" above "athletics", yet BOTH are spelled incorrectly?

Tyler said...

Anonymous spews: Sad thing is, I won't get any joy saying "I told you so" on that day.

Ahem...

"The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked."

Another christian godbot who doesn't believe his own bullshit.

Anonymous said...

This is speaking of God bringing down the enemies of his people. That's why it says they "wash their feet in the blood of the wicked." Those who would do wicked to God's people will be slain at their feet. And yes, one army would definitely rejoice at the defeat of the opposition. This verse (taken in context) isn't referring to eternal judgement.

cl said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tyler said...

Anonymous spews: This is speaking of God bringing down the enemies of his people.

'Did you put that together yourself, Einstein? What... you got a team of monkeys workin' around the clock on this?'

Anonymous spews: That's why it says they "wash their feet in the blood of the wicked." Those who would do wicked to God's people will be slain at their feet.

What does one have to do with the other?

Anonymous continues to spew: And yes, one army would definitely rejoice at the defeat of the opposition. This verse (taken in context) isn't referring to eternal judgement.

Of all the people to be appealing to context, the christian is the most amusing, due to the endless line of contexts applied by christians themselves to virtually if not every single verse in their holey book. Nonetheless...

Why would it be any different in an "eternal judgement[sic]" context?