Atheists Are Wrong

I fully understand that you stated in your acceptance speech/last argument round that when you forfeit, it means that I've proved that God exists. But for the sake of the debate, and because a huge gap at the bottom of this page would be unsightly, I've had a few things in my mind I wanted to point out. So you're an atheist. I won't condemn you. How could I? Some atheists think they've taken a heroic stand, but could it be that they really don't want to face up to the possibility that God is indeed there? I hope you'll be intellectually honest enough to consider what I have to say and see if it makes sense. You might say, If God is there, let him prove it to me. I don't want to take an irrational leap of faith. Fine. In Isaiah 2:18 God says: come let us reason together. He wants us to reason and He certainly wants us to be be rational, but He will not submit himself to human scrutiny; to do so he would need to stop being God! He will not bow to our perverse judgements. Ask yourself, Would I ever be willing to believe God is there, however strong the evidence? You see, your problem may not be in your head as much as in your heart. Perhaps you've already taken a leap of faith. To assert God cannot exist, despite the impossibility of proving that statement, is the ultimate irrational leap! Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. Atheists tend to put a lot of stock in the emperical method and in logic. One cannot disprove God exists using the emperical method. You might reply: But I can't disprove a giant purple frog on Mars controls the universe, either. Granted, one can never disprove any given thing exists. The atheistic position denying God's existence, if based on the emperical method, is absurd. Why do I say that? In order to prove the assertion No God exists experimentally, one would need to comprehensively know all of reality. Comprehensive knowledge of reality is called omniscience. One would need to be omniscient in order to prove there is no God, but if one were omniscient one would, by definition, already be God! So, based on emperical methodology, the only one capable of disproving the existence of God would be God himself! But some would say you can indeed assert something does not exist if its existence is logically self contradictory, such as a square triangle. By definition it cannot exist. It is illogical for something to be a square and to also be a triangle. Again, granted, but this line of reasoning assumes logic and real meaning exist and are our basis for knowledge --something an atheist has no right to assert! The existence of God is not only logically possible, it is philosophically essential. (We'll get to that more later below.) One cannot prove logic exists unless one first presupposes a God in whom reason and meaning are transcendentally rooted, otherwise these categories are mere philosphical prejuduces. Atheism is inherently self-contradictory. The evidence for the existence of God is there for all to see, only we refuse to see it. King David wrote: The fool says in his heart there is no God. (Psalm 14:1) In other words, Atheism is irrational. Apart from God there is no basis for truth or ethics. For the sake of brevity, let's simply consider ethics. Beyond dispute there are moral atheists. I ve known atheists who are more ethical than some people claiming to believe in a god. This is not the issue. The question is, why be ethical? Can an adequate basis for morality be found given atheistic premises? Think about it. Unless God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right and wrong. If God did not give the Ten Commandments to Moses at Sinai, thereby establishing a moral standard above human creation, we are merely left with humanly devised scruples. If humanity is left to create its own ethical standards, we are left with only three options to base ethics upon: 1) collective tradition, 2) human survival, or 3) personal preference. Those who argue that morality is properly based upon what society as a whole deems moral have a big problem. What one society says is moral another says is immoral. Nazi Germany held that it was morally good and beneficial to exterminate the Jewish people. The Allies saw the Nazis as evil and fought against them. Who was right? If one believes God gave the law You shall not murder, the answer is obvious. Any society that advocates murder is evil. How can an atheist respond? Most would admit the Nazis were evil, but according to what standard? Were the Nazis evil just because the Allies said they were evil or were they in fact evil? One can try to argue that it isn't just what a few societies say that matters, but what the majority of human societies agree upon. This does provide a better basis, since God has given us a conscience, but it has been corrupted by rebellion. At one time most human societies placed less value on female offspring than on males. In many societies female infants were left to die. In some places this exists today. This is morally wrong, no matter if the whole of human society were to say otherwise! Basing morality on human society does not provide an adequate answer. What of an evolutionary model for morality? Why not posit that whatever benefits human survival is moral? To some this may be appealing, but first ask some questions. Why, based upon atheistic assumptions, should we logically value human survival? What difference does it all make? Why is life valuable? Isn't belief in human survival itself a moral assumption, a value judgement that has no basis in an atheistic world view? Furthermore, consider what an ethic based solely on survival could lead to: the elimination of those perceived to have less survival value. The Nazi movement, based upon an evolutionary eugenic ideal of developing a super race, destroyed those deemed by them inferior or unsuitable. Reproduction was to be limited to those deemed most fit. Mankind, when left to its own devices to develop its moral basis, commits systemized murder and oppression. Consider the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the horrible situations we have witnessed in Rwanda and Bosnia. Both atheists and religious people so easily justify murder. Just because we have also seen horrors committed by those claiming to believe in some sort of god doesn't disprove my point. I'm not advocating just any old god! It is still true that when any society abandons the God-given law, You shall not murder, horror results. What of basing morality on one's personal preferences? What of just saying you can know what is wrong by following your heart? What a dippy idea this is! Jeffrey Dahmer's heart led him to murder and cannibalize his fellow humans! Basing morality on feelings is the ultimate in irrationality. This puts moral judgement on the level of personal taste. Another thought: we even transgress the scruples we ourselves invent. Is this logical? No. A wise rabbi, the Apostle Paul, wrote: "The anger of God is being revealed from heaven against all the Godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them." God's existence is clearly seen in what He has made. The intricate brilliance of the created order reveals the mind of an infinitely intelligent Designer just as surely as a great work of architecture or a complex piece of technology reveals the mind of its designer. Furthermore, our own consciences and sense of justice, though corrupted by our rebellion, still tell us there is right and wrong and a God who has a perfect moral standard.