Link to the source - http://www.the-daily-blessing.com/apologetics/Does_God_Exist/a_philosophical_issue.html
The great majority of atheists claim that there is a lack of evidence pointing to the existence of a God. But it is not that there is a lack of evidence; it is that the interpretations of the evidence which exists is biased against the supernatural. If there was some sort of phenomenon that occurred that could not be explained scientifically, would that prove to you that there is a God? Or would you simply say that there has to be some sort of natural explanation? If you say there has to be some sort of natural explanation, how do you come to that conclusion, and how do you know that you haven't already biasedly misinterpreted supernatural evidence because of your preditermined commitment to materialism? What convinces you that everything must be explained by natural causes? Sadly this has been labeled as “common sense”, but it is not at all. It is not that this is a scientific or logical fact, because you can't use the scientific method to come to this conclusion. Instead, it is simply a philosophical predisposition that is being made, and the evidence that is in fact interpreted "scientifically" is often interpreted with such irrational presuppositions in mind.
Some atheists claim that Christianity is just a crutch. In other words, it’s just a belief created by men to make us feel more comfortable about life, to attempt to give a purpose to life, and/or to give an answer to the most difficult questions. But where's the evidence to back up this claim? The fact that Christianity deals with the supernatural is not evidence for such a claim. Such an excuse is only evidence that someone making this excuse is biased against even the possibility of the supernatural. Christianity is based off of history, not myth. And if you don't believe me, you should actually try studying it. Furthermore there are two major problems with this claim in addition to the fact that Christianity is founded off of a great abundance of objective evidence and history.
5 comments:
Bought Lee Strobel's A case for Christ movie last night, was pretty good.
cas
cas...why arent you posting today!! kidding.
dont have much to respond to, but liked the argument that: we seem to accept or explain things by saying "natural explanation" yet we dont have proof and yet we have a hard time accepting christianity with or without proof (which i think there is proof, but just to prove this argument). i do think it is worth debating and proving away the concept that christianity is just a crutch to make men feel more comfy about life. look forward to more on this.
i read most of the book but would like to see the movie - can i borrow when done?
But of course, and you can always ask one of my kids to explain anything you don't understand :-/
cas
I've always wondered why some of the "smartest" people in the world (scientists) can't allow for natural causes (stemming originally from God's creation) to be the stimulus behind things, in complement to phenomena that they can't explain to be the work of a greater being. It would seem to me that these could be in perfect harmony. As one of the previous posts mentioned, a perfect God would have created "scientifically observable phenomena" to also be perfect, thus fitting the "natural causes" role.
Kind of rambling,
crb
Post a Comment