Lots of atheists popping in to start threads and answer in threads. Here’s what I’m seeing they say there’s no evidence when there’s plenty we have cosmological they reject then theres teleological they reject that then objective moral argument they reject that we have causality they reject that we have reason they reject that. They are looking for imperical science as if you can take it into a lab. They haven’t even tried forensic but they will probably reject that. They probably never asked god of if they did god would direct them to his creation if they reject that he won’t give them anymore light if they did he would grant the light of scripture and if they followed that then light of Christ. Bottom line is they reject everything they can’t see so they will remain in that condition till they have a change of heart. Conclusion they reject everything a Christian has to say and the only reason they are on these forums is to toy with Christians. Play with them don’t play with them they seek nothing
Discussion
25 comments
-
They are without excuse…
-
Roman’s clearly states that they suppress the truth in unrighteousness for God has clearly made it evident in creation itself . They are without excuse….
-
Everyone like to point to science for the final fact in things. I think even we saved do it from time to time. But there are things we know exist that science can’t say anything about by definition. Science is simply observation.
-
Romans 2…athiests dont exist.
-
Until the Father draws them in, their hearts will be hardened. I once believed in science only. Then, the Father drew me in and I believed in Christ. Science actually made more sense. God created the laws of science. There are too many of laws that has to exist for life to exist to happen by chance. Knowing that God created the laws of science gave me hope as a teenage. Now that I am older, I would not have enough faith to be an atheist.
-
Yeah, that’s sad, I used to be in that boat at one time 38 years ago. Thank God I sought for God and he reveled himself to me.
-
Cosmological and Moral Arguments are good. Teleological is ok. You shouldve thrown Ontological in as well
-
Bottom line no matter what plausible evidence shown will be rejected because what god had made plain to observe they choose to honor the creation and not the creator so no light to see until then
-
If you want to convince atheists that God exists, you don’t need to give an incontrovertible apodictic proof.
I’m not looking for that degree of proof, and I don’t think most atheists ask for that degree of proof.
All you need to do is give me three things;
1./ A coherent definition of God.
2./ A set of empirically testable and falsifiable predictions based on the supposition that God exists.
3./ Test results that match those predictions and are more parsimoniously explained by God’s existence than any other hypothesis.To date, apologists have failed to meet even the first requirement.
-
Well I’ll ask god to go to your lab and you can reject him there would that help? By the way your requests have been given you just reject them all
-
God can’t be put into a lab. He’s bigger than the physical realm. He manifests Himself in the physical, but how can we put something spiritual into a box to study? The only way to understand God is to have a relationship with Him. Without open-mindedness we don’t go very far in life.
-
To an atheist many of our arguments sound like we’re making excuses to believe what we want.
In the end, belief or unbelief in God is about the will, not the intellect. Before engaging with an atheist, ask them, “If God could be proven, if Christ Himself appeared to you, would you be willing to believe?” If they’re honest, many wouldn’t. If they say they would be willing then you can discuss.
Also, refer them to hard Biblical prophecy… not what they could consider was caused to happen by those who wanted it, but stuff like how Christ fulfilled hundreds of prophecies, many of which couldn’t be fulfilled by the will of man. Bypass the intellect and go straight to something a scientist can’t explain.
-
Essentially they would like to get us to stop believing in God, so that it can prove their theory is true lol.
-
Let us pray for their salvation.
-
I don’t want to eliminate the possibility of at least one searching, let’s just treat them as Christ wants, may His love will draw them
-
They reject what they can and cannot see.
-
Seems like a good framework. So cosmological > teleological > objective moral argument > causality ?
did you take an apologetics class? would you mind directing me to some resources for this? I would like to learn more 🙂
-
Cross examined. Org
-
If atheists are TRULY searching, they will find. It’s not up to us to ‘convince’ them! That is the work of the Holy Spirit!
For those that only want to argue, don’t cast the pearls, pray for them! -
Jesus said no man comes to Him unless the Father draws him. So until God is working on them they will remain closed off.
-
What exactly do they believe in ?
It takes some form
Of faith to not believe in nothing …
Creation in itself is self explanatory..
Us humans are able to multiply. (Sex)
(Male and Female only)
Animals do the same ..
Ummm;
same creator ?
Why?
They also multiply ?
(Male and Female)
Ummm; Same way
(sex)
I’m sorry, there’s no other explanation.
We don’t come from nothing
?
Yes God is and always was.
It’s a mystery .. ❤️
He’s always been.
He’s the beginning and the end.
All atheist have, is a Theory, of a mans thought of what they think happened.
That is all !
Evolution is a theory pioneered by Charles Darwin that says Over vast amounts of time natural selection (in which the strong survive and produce successful offspring) and genetic modification ( the imperfect transmission of genes from generation to generation) gradually helped organisms adapt to their physical environments, resulting in the diversity of biological species we see today.
In the mainstream scientific community, evolution means both microevolution (evolution within species or among closely related species) and macroevolution (evolution of new species arising from less-complex life forms )
Evidence against Darwinism evolution..
1. Darwinism is unable to say how life could have emerged from non-life. The more we learn about the complexity of the cell, the deeper the problem becomes.
2. If Darwinian evolution were
True , we should find millions of transitional forms in the fossil record, but the missing links are still
Missing.
3. Darwinists say natural selection is evidence of macroevolution. However, natural selection, which is basic science, simply demonstrates change within the species. This is called microevolution.
4. Critiquing Darwinism does not make a person anti science. We all share the same scientific evidence. The question is, what theory or imperative framework
Best explains evidence ?! -
All the evidence is fallacious.
It’s not our fault. -
God gave them strong delusion.
Comments