This particular blog put up a post about atheism (that can be found at this location), which made several startling claims about atheists, such as that we are trying to destroy children, that we secretly believe the Christian deity is real, and that Christians aren’t required to provide proof of their deity’s existence.
After a series of exchanges in which Dave refused to answer direct questions and repeatedly reiterated the same idea over and over, even after it had been addressed at length multiple times, he decided to go a step further and delete comments containing questions he couldn’t answer. Unfortunately I’ve learned to expect this sort of behavior during my discussion with the religious (one of the religious individuals who sent us on our Portland trip to investigate faith healing was infamous for deleting comments containing ideas that contradicted his worldview, and then adding his own comments so it looked like he had gained the upper hand in an argument), which is why I always save each comment as it is made.
Below you can find the complete and unaltered conversation, which is an interesting look into how Christians (or at least this particular Christian) view atheism and how they react when confronted with questions from actual atheists. Several other people commented before me, and my posts start about nine comments down (as a side note, I haven’t given anyone pseudonyms here as I usually do, because this conversation is already publically available for viewing by anyone and didn’t take place on a social networking site or during a private exchange of messages).
There is one thing that I didn’t bring up in the comments below that is worth examining first however. Notice how, when responding to an anonymous poster questioning his logic, Dave says “God says you know He's there. Search your heart and mind, honestly. Is He right?”
I’ve seen quite a few similar arguments from Christians before, and it’s interesting how they are trying to determine truth based on emotion, rather than evidence. The problem with that line of thinking is that feelings do not, and in fact can not, determine whether something is factually accurate. Say for instance that I search my soul and discover that, in my heart of hearts, I know that Reese Witherspoon is madly in love with me. My feelings on the subject, and my level of sincere belief, will not change in any way the fact that Reese Witherspoon is not actually in love with me, and in fact doesn’t even know who I am.
This is how Reese Witherspoon looks every time she thinks about me. My heart says so, and none of your evil reason or logic can convince me otherwise.
Dave fervently believes (or at least claims to fervently believe) that his deity has already provided direct evidence for its existence to all the atheists, and they are just denying this knowledge or lying about it for some reason. But, much like my belief about Reese Witherspoon, his emotions and his level of belief doesn’t change the fact that his belief is still wrong. The Christian deity has never provided any physical evidence of its existence to me, nor has it popped down to Earth to have a conversation with me, or so on and so forth.
And without further ado, here's the conversation in its entirety:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
don't quit your day jobPaul
I don't think you understand atheism.. Quote the bible all you want, the atheist will ask how you have determined that the bible is true. It's just another book, but one you think is true probably because you happened to be born to Christian parents. The burden of proof belongs the person claiming a god exists, just as it would to a person claiming a unicorn exists. TastyPaper
I'm an atheist. I'm not walking into any schools, and I have no interest in "destroying" children. Stop making false statements about me, and people who simply disbelieve in your brand of super-naturalism.Christians are the MAJORITY in the U.S. and you're picking on the minority, as if we could ever outnumber you. If you're really so afraid of us, maybe it's your own belief that's struggling.
Bryan
You really haven't thought this out very well (other than the one-sided overcompensation). You should give atheism an honest try. Most of us are a lot more like you than you imagine. Also, please understand that we don't want to take your religion away from you, we just don't want it pushed on us and our children. Christianity doesn't deserve the privileged status it has been given for far too long, and excludes others outside of this "club". Imagine if the roles were reversed (at least in the USA). Would you be ok with printing "There is no God" on all of our money? I can't imagine you would be very happy with that. Or how about "In Oden we trust"? All we ask is the same courtesy in return, so that we can all just be Americans. Atheism is the largest "religious" minority in the USA, and we matter every bit as much as the religions, with the demand and expectation of equal rights. That seems completely reasonable to me... Downtown Dave
No, Paul, the burden of proof belongs to God, and He has already proven Himself.
Downtown Dave
Bryan, you can't give Atheism an honest try when at the very core of atheism is the deceitfulness of a man's own heart. Anonymous
It looks to me Dave as if you scanned through the comments looking specifically for the points with which you disagree. You either missed, or failed to address the bulk of what has been said, which is a serious problem in any intellectually honest discussion.You're welcome believe that you can tell me what my epistemological theory is while knowing nothing about me. I would not (by the way) be anywhere near as presumtuous with regard to yours, and prefer the time honored tradition of actually asking someone what their position is instead of telling them.
One wonders why the language of your blog is as militant as it is. As a lover of peace, words like "battle", "arena", and "destroy" certainly don't enter into my dialogue with Christians.
I could systematically correct you on a number of statements which (depending upon your intent) are either mistakes, or lies. I think the root of the problem however, lies in your heart and not your mind.
Downtown Dave
The purpose of this blog, Anonymous, is because the issue of atheism is no longer a debate between you and me (which you are consistently trying to make it), but between you and God. The Scriptures quoted are God's message to you--he knows the thoughts and intent of your heart. You may very well be able to overcome me in a debate, but you can't overcome the truth of God's Word. God says you know He's there. Search your heart and mind, honestly. Is He right? Ty Arthur
Hey Dave,
I came across your blog and felt the need to respond to many of the statements you’ve made here. As a full upfront disclosure, I am not a member of any Christian denomination, and am in fact an atheist. I’ve been involved in many debates, both online and offline with members of many different religions, so I’d like to give a little disclaimer ahead of time here that none of this should be taken as a personal attack, but rather as an exchange of ideas so you can better understand my position and I can better understand yours. I’d also like to point out that none of the questions I ask here should be considered rhetorical – I would actually like for you to carefully consider what I ask and respond if you have the time or inclination. To get a few common questions and deflections out of the way ahead of time, yes, I have read the Bible cover to cover, and yes, I have attended church services of many different denominations – from Baptist to Foursquare to Mormon to Pentecostal to Catholoic to Charismatic, and so on.
I have put your words in quotes below to make it clear what issue I’m addressing.
“And as we do battle there, they are systematically trying to take God out of America, and they are walking right into our schools and destroying our children.”
I have frequently heard similar statements from Christians about God being removed from schools, and have seen several billboard style adds insinuating that God allows violence in schools because he isn’t allowed in the school system. As someone who has attended both the public school system and a private Christian school, I can assure that this just simply isn’t the case.
Christianity is not barred in any way from schools. The public school I attended from my sophomore year to my senior year had a Christian club that met every morning for prayer. Children were allowed to bring any religious text they wanted and read it during their free time, as they would with any other book. My French teacher taught us church hymns in French during Christmas season. My biology teacher went out of her way to gloss over the cornerstone of all modern biology - evolution - because of her religious beliefs (and again, this was all in public school, after I left a private Christian school).
What’s not allowed in schools is for teachers to *force* students to pray or to specifically endorse one religion over any other. And that’s not a bad thing, even for Christians.
Consider for a moment if the same statement you made came from someone of the Islamic faith. How would you feel if someone campaigned to insert Allah into public schools and ensure children prayed facing east five times a day? I’m willing to bet that you’d suddenly feel the same way as I do about keeping religion out of schools. For those parents who feel their children need a religious upbringing, there is always the option of private religious schools that teach whatever doctrine the family happens to adhere to (although as someone who’s been there and done that, I can’t recommend it).
Next, you went on to state, “In Psalm 14:1 it is written, ‘The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.’ The Word of God says that the person says it, not that they believe it. John 1:9 says, ‘The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.’ No person is without the revelation of God.”
I’d again ask you to consider how you would respond if someone of an opposing religion (or even a different denomination of Christianity that doesn’t believe your denomination actually has salvation) were to say this same thing to you. Would you be swayed to admit your belief in Allah if a Muslim told you that all people have the revelation of Allah? What if I told you that no person is without the revelation that there is no God – would that sway you to admit your atheism?
I can assure that I very much am without revelation of any supernatural being, whether it be Zeus, Allah, Hecate, Poseidon, Cthulhu, Hercules, Jehovah, Mithra, Kali, the flying spaghetti monster, or any other deity that’s ever been believed in throughout history. I have seen no evidence for the existence of any of these beings, and I harbor no secret belief in any of them. It’s pointless, and even somewhat counter-productive, to tell members of opposing viewpoints that they secretly agree with you. If I were to quote some text that said Christians secretly agreed with atheists, would you consider my argument valid? If you wouldn’t, then how can you expect others to consider your argument as valid?
“John 15:18 says, ‘If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated Me first.’ It is impossible for someone to hate Christians without first hating Jesus. And it is impossible for someone to hate someone that they don’t believe exists.”
I’d again like to ask you to consider this same idea from an opposite view point. I’m going to assume that you are an atheist in regards to the deity Demeter, who is worshipped by many Wiccans. Does your atheism of Demeter mean that you hate all Wiccans, and that your hatred of Wiccans somehow proves that Demeter is real? As you yourself said, I can’t possibly hate something that doesn’t exist. As an atheist, I don’t hate Jesus any more than I hate Santa Claus.
I will freely admit that I hate many of the things Christians have done. I hate that Paul Hill shot and killed doctors because of his religious beliefs. I hate that Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist church picket the funerals of soldiers who died in combat while holding signs that say “Thank God for IEDs” and “Pray for more dead soldiers.” I hate that the Pope once told people in Africa that condoms cause AIDs and they shouldn’t be using them. I hate that many denominations of Christianity, primarily led by the Mormons, banded together to deny equal civil rights to homosexuals in California. (As a quick aside - should you be compelled to respond by saying “but those aren’t *real* Christians,” I’d ask you to consider that they very likely feel the same way about you) But none of that somehow means that I hate Jesus or all Christians. As an atheist, I feel that people should be judged on their individual merits, and not necessarily just by their inclusion in a specific social group.
"God set me free from that. It’s not your responsibility to prove the existence of God. It’s God’s responsibility. And He’s already done it. He has proven His existence through Creation, Conscience, and Christ, the Word of God.”
I would humbly disagree with you here. Again, consider if someone of an opposing religion said the same thing to you. If someone who fervently believed in Zeus said that it wasn’t their responsibility to prove Zeus’s existence, as the very nature of creation pointed to the existence of Zeus, would you be swayed to believe in Zeus in any way?
This is why we have a concept known as the “burden of proof.” If someone is making a claim (for instance, “The Christian God is real”), then the burden of proof falls on that person to prove their claim. The burden of proof does not fall on me to disprove your claim. Until valid, verifiable evidence is provided to back up a claim, there is simply no reason for anyone to accept it as valid.
Consider if I told you that the real creator of the universe was a giant fuzzy pickle, and his name was Bob. Bob’s nemesis is an invisible purple elephant, and he created Christianity to lead people away from Bob’s truth. Now say that I told you it’s not my responsibility to prove Bob’s existence, because it’s Bob’s responsibility, and he’s already done it. Bob has proven his existence through creation, conscience, his son Phil, and his holy book.
Would you accept this argument from me about Bob? If not, how can you expect anyone else to accept that argument from you about the Christian deity? Until you can provide some sort of evidence to back up your claim, there is no reason for anyone to consider it a valid possibility – just as you don’t have to consider my claim about Bob to be a valid possibility until I provide some proof to back it up.
“Creation proves the existence of God.”
I would urge you to head to your local library and pick up a text on cosmology, or even perform a simple Google search for a phrase like “Origin of the Universe” and read through the many resources that are freely available online from legitimate, reputable scientific sources. The origin of the universe does not require a supernatural explanation.
And again, please consider this exact same statement from someone of an opposing religion. If the fact that the universe exists doesn’t prove Thor or Hephaestus or Azathoth, then why would it prove the Christian deity?
"Your conscience proves the existence of God.”
Does my conscience prove the existence of Aphrodite? What about Baal? Cernunnos? Fenrir? Hades? Nergal? The Biblical passage you quoted says “(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)” I would submit to you that perhaps these verses from Romans should be looked at from a different angle – as even the Bible is freely admitting here that man doesn’t need a belief in Jesus in order to be moral and have values. I don’t believe in any god or goddess, and yet I have a moral compass. As a side note here, in many conversations I’ve had with the religious I will typically be asked at this point why I behave in a moral manner if there is no God to provide a promise of heaven or a threat of hell. I’ve covered this topic at this location if you’re interested in reading my thoughts.
“Christ, the Word of God, proves the existence of God.”
I can provide you with resources where historians talk about Hercules. Does this prove that his father Zeus is real? I can show you a copy of the Koran, the word of Allah – does this prove the existence of Allah? If not, then why should these things prove the Christian God?
“Since God gives witness of His existence to every person, no person can honestly say they do not believe there is a God. So what is really going on….” And then “(Rebellion against God is what really is going on.)”
I would again like to reiterate that I have witnessed nothing to show the existence of any god or goddess, whether it be the Christian deity or any other supernatural being people believe in. I can’t possibly be rebelling against the Christian deity, as I don’t believe that being exists. Would you accept this same argument if a Muslim told you that you are rebelling against Allah and that Allah has given witness of his existence to you?
I’m going to assume that as a Christian you believe your deity is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipresent (everywhere at once). There’s an open invitation here from me to any supernatural being that may exist to provide proof of its existence to me. As a being that is all-powerful and already everywhere at once, it should be a simple matter for the Christian deity to appear and say “Sorry about the mixup, I’m real, and this sect of Christianity over here is the right one.” As a loving being who doesn’t want me to go to hell, it should be in his best interest to do so, and yet you may want to note that this hasn’t happened.
I am an honest person. If I had seen evidence for the existence of any deity, I would have no choice but to admit it and become a theist. I have seen no evidence for the existence of any supernatural being, and thus I remain an atheist.
“A person can either continue in rebellion and be destroyed, or they can take refuge in Christ and escape God’s wrath.”
This argument is a logical fallacy known as an “appeal to force.” This type of argument essentially says, “agree with me, or you will be punished.” The problem with an appeal to force is that it doesn’t actually change the facts. I can appeal to force for a position that’s incorrect, but that appeal to force doesn’t somehow make my position correct. I can threaten you with eternal hellfire if you don’t believe the moon is made out of cheese, but it won’t change the fact that the moon is not made of cheese. Consider if I were to say the same thing to you as what you wrote above, but simply swapped out the name of the deity. Would it make my argument correct if I appealed to force by saying, “A person can either continue in rebellion and be destroyed, or they can take refuge in Odin and escape his wrath”?
Thanks for your time Dave, and have a great week!
Downtown Dave
Ty, if you read a good book, and quote something to me that you read in the book, does that make you the author, or are you relaying something to me that you read? The Scriptures quoted above are not my own words, I'm quoting from the Word of God, therefore your debate is with God, not with me.You said that the burden of proof lies with me, but the burden lies with God. In Luke 16:19-31 we find 8 characters: Abraham, Lazarus (in Abrahams bosom or Paradise), the rich man (in hell) and the rich man's five brothers. The rich man wanted Abraham to provide proof of hell to his brothers by sending Lazarus up from the dead and tell them about it so they wouldn't end up there. Abraham immediately took the burden of proof off of himself and put the burden on the Word of God, the Scriptures, by saying, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets (the Old Testament), they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."
As one who has read the Bible cover to cover, isn't it true that the people of Jesus' day kept asking that Jesus would just give them one more sign, and then one more sign, and then one more, and then they would believe?
God has already proven Himself to you.
CoderHead
Dave, you're missing the point. Any member of any other religion could make an identical statement:
"Odin has already proven himself to you."
"Zeus has already proven himself to you."
"Allah has already proven himself to you."
It's an assertion and nothing more. It does nothing to reveal the actual truth of the claim but merely speaks from a presupposition. This is why atheists demand evidence, much like Thomas did when Jesus provided him with the exact evidence he needed in order to overcome his skepticism. Yes, Jesus chastised him for his lack of faith but there's nothing indicating that Thomas was damned to Hell for being skeptical of extraordinary claims. An observant atheist will take this one of two ways:
1. It's OK to ask for evidence of god's existence because god is said to love us and want us in Heaven with him.
2. It's patently unfair for Thomas to have been shown what he needed to believe when the rest of us aren't allowed to "test god."
I'd also like to point out that your NT scripture is taken out of context and the Psalms are personal poetry, meaning that god didn't "breathe" those words even if they were inspired by David's love of god. You may want to try using a logical, convincing argument instead of throwing something together piecemeal to try and sway a person who needs a compelling reason to believe.
Downtown Dave
No, I'm not missing the point. It's good that you want evidence, but I'm not the one to give it to you, it's God. And He says in His Word that He has already given you the evidence.Ty Arthur
Dave,
(This is part 1 of 2 due to space restrictions in comments) I appreciate that you took the time to respond, but I’m afraid I have to express some frustration here. Can you see from my point of view how it would be frustrating that I took the time to respond point by point to everything you said, and yet you ignored nearly everything I wrote, and then even reiterated an issue I’d already addressed?
Should I assume that you are conceding every point you ignored, and that you agree with me on these subjects? If you don’t cover them in any way, how am I to assume otherwise? Before getting into your new post, I want to go over several of the issues that weren’t addressed to make sure we are on the same page, or at least understand where the other party stands and why.
Do you understand the difference between atheists trying to destroy children and take God out of schools, and the reality of the situation that public schools don’t ban Christianity, but rather prohibit teachers from forcing students to take part in it or any other religion?
Do you agree that your atheism towards the deity Demeter doesn’t prove the claims of Wicca and doesn’t mean you hate all Wiccans, just as my atheism towards the Christian deity doesn’t prove the claims of Christianity or mean I hate Christians?
Can you see from my point of view how it may appear dishonest of you (and as though you hold a pretty big double standard) to require all other religions to hold the burden of proof for the existence of their deity, and yet claim that you don’t hold the burden of proof to prove the existence of your deity? Do you realize you wouldn’t accept this same argument from any other religion, and can you see why atheists wouldn’t accept it from you?
Did you head down to your library or even perform a Google search on the origins of the universe? Do you understand that the existence of life does not require a supernatural explanation, so that argument isn’t a convincing one for the existence of any deity?
(This is part 2 of 2, continued from above) In your response, you said, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets (the Old Testament), they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."
I’m again afraid I’ll have to disagree with you here. If you were to show me valid, verifiable evidence that someone had been raised from the dead through magical means, I would have simply no choice but to admit the existence of the supernatural. I have not seen any evidence to back up any supernatural claim (from those of Wiccans to those of mediums to those of Christianity and any other religion). The only reason statements like this have to be made is because people do *not* magically rise from the dead, so the supporters of supernatural beliefs need a failsafe to explain why there is no proof. Human beings do *not* have limbs magically regrown through the power of prayer or magic rituals. Seas do *not* verifiably part and allow refugees to run through. Bushes do *not* verifiably burn without being consumed and have big booming voices come out of them. And so on and so forth.
But beyond all that, you may want to take into consideration that I didn’t ask for someone to be resurrected from the dead. I stated that I was open to any supernatural being, of any religion, appearing in front of me and having a rational conversation in which that being explains it’s existence and states which sect of which religion is the right one. It would appear that five minutes of direct, rational conversation is simply beyond the abilities of the all-powerful, omnipresent Christian deity. This is why the burden of proof falls on you in this instance. If your deity won’t appear and defend itself, it’s up to you to provide some evidence to back up your deity’s existence. Can you see how you would expect no different from the members of an opposing religion if the situations were reversed?
You then also said, “God has already proven Himself to you.”
Unfortunately, repeating the same idea over and over doesn’t change whether that idea is factually correct or factually incorrect. You can continue to tell me that the Christian deity has already shown itself as many times as you wish, but it won’t change the fact that this statement is simply incorrect.
Repeatedly telling me that the Christian god has shown me proof of its existence isn’t any more helpful (or conducive to an effective discussion and exchange of ideas) than if I were to repeatedly tell you that the Islamic god had already show you proof of its existence. I disagree with your statement for the same reasons that you would disagree with mine.
I would urge you to take the time to consider what this means for your beliefs. You believe the Bible, the infallible inspired word of an all-knowing and all-powerful being, states that the Christian god has already proven its existence to me. I’m telling you directly in no uncertain terms that no deity, whether yours or anyone else’s, has shown me any evidence for its existence. What does that say about your god and your Bible (or at the very least, your interpretation of it)?
Thanks for taking the time to read this Dave, and hope all is well for you and yours!
CoderHead
He may (or his followers may) *think* he's given me evidence, but what I'm talking about is the verifiable evidence he gave to Thomas. Thomas proves that it's OK to be a skeptic, would you agree? I'd like you to comment on that since you seem to have overlooked it. I'm interested in what you have to say.Again, every other god throughout history can make the claim that they're self-evident. It doesn't mean they ever existed. Please understand that I'm trying to point out a very logical and rational point and I'm in no way attacking you.
Downtown Dave
Without being disrespectful to either Ty or Coderhead, my comments may not seem to answer every point, but they do. It is God who has said that He has given you the proof. The Scripture says (and this is Scripture, not me) "Let God be true and every man a liar." God says He has revealed/proven Himself to us. And that's it. And He is holding everyone of us accountable for what He has revealed.CoderHead
Dave, the problem I have with how you're arguing this is that you dismiss out of hand any identical assertions from other gods, yet you feel that such an assertion by your god ought to convince us to believe as you do. If you can so easily dismiss thousands of other gods I hardly see where we could be labeled haters for doing the same with one more god. Do you understand the arguments Ty and I are making? Downtown Dave
Yes, I understand the arguments. Acts 17:29-31 says, "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhwere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead. (Notice here who has given the proof). CoderHead
Dave, I'd love to continue to try and understand your viewpoint but it's almost as though you don't want me to. Your quoting of Acts 17:29-31 would be fine in the context of Paul's ministry less than 40 years after Jesus' death. However, 2000 years later we can hardly consider the "evidence" of Jesus' resurrection compelling. It seems as though you're shifting the argument now (or perhaps this passage doesn't entirely convey your point) to the existence of eyewitnesses - none of which are still alive. If I've made an incorrect assumption, I apologize. However, I don't see this passage of scripture as offering anything new to the discussion. Rather, it appears you're just cherry-picking verses that support your preconception.To be honest, I'd be interested in hearing what *you* have to say about it instead of being fed the words of others from a book I've already read and found lacking. Is that fair?
Ty Arthur
Dave,I’m disappointed to see that you continue to actively refuse to answer every direct question asked of you, and that you continue to blindly repeat the mantra that your deity has already proven its existence to us.
Consider if you had a child who told you the boogeyman was not only real, but also a major player in his life. Pretend for a moment that you tried to explain to your superstitious offspring that the boogeyman is just a figment of his imagination, and a construct conjured up by his mind to explain the unknown. But your child won’t be dissuaded from his belief, and states quite confidently that he knows, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the boogeyman does in fact exist. If you ask your child to prove his claim, and show you the boogeyman, what would you do if your child told you he doesn’t need to prove the boogeyman’s existence to you, and that you in fact already know the boogeyman is real – as the boogeyman has appeared to you in the dead of night, and you are just denying it for some reason.
Can you see how this is what you’ve been doing here?
It doesn’t matter how many times you reiterate your belief that the Christian deity has provided evidence of his existence to all people. It can be said a hundred times or a million times, and it won’t change the simple truth that I have seen no evidence of any kind for the existence of the Christian deity, or any other god or goddess from any other mythology.
Using the Bible as a shield to protect yourself from the burden of proof isn’t going to convince anyone of your position, and it’s actually rather dishonest and just plain silly. You wouldn’t accept this same argument from anyone under any other circumstances, and it should be obvious why no one has to accept this argument from you in this circumstance.
Telling me that the Bible says I already have seen proof of the Biblical deity is pointless, as I don’t accept the Bible as a valid resource on reality (The bit about the talking snake or the story of universe being formed in six days by an invisible wizard in the sky should have been the first clues, and then it just gets less believable from there) any more than I consider The Lord of the Rings fantasy novels to be a valid resource on reality. You can’t use the Bible to prove the stories in the Bible any more than I can use The Fellowship of the Ring to prove the stories in The Fellowship of the Ring. You have to provide outside evidence to back up your claims, just as I would have to provide outside evidence to back up my claim if I stated that I believed in Gandalf, and that The Fellowship of the Ring is proof of Gandalf’s existence. I can tell you that you secretly know Gandalf is real and you are just rebelling against him as many times as I want, but it won’t change the fact that I’m wrong, and you actually haven’t seen any evidence for the existence of Gandalf.
Based on your responses up until now, it seems rather pointless to try to continue this discussion at this point, as it’s a completely one-sided conversation. If you are unwilling to consider your position from an outside viewpoint, and are completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that you may be wrong, then what’s the point in talking with people at all?
I hope that one day you’ll have the honesty and bravery to really scrutinize your beliefs and have the willingness to accept truth, no matter where it takes you. As someone who has escaped the shackles of superstition, I can assure you that there is a joy and freedom out here in reality that can’t be matched by unyielding belief in the supernatural. Until then, I wish you the best, and hope all goes well for you and yours.
Downtown Dave
Your right. I have shifted the argument from you and me to you and God. Again, the burden of proof is on Him. In the verses you speak of above, you'll notice God says He has given proof of the resurrection to all men, not just to those who saw it. Understand, my purpose is not to frustrate you. My hope is that in this Book that you say is lacking, God will make Himself known to you. My prayers are with you. Downtown Dave
No matter how many scenarios you give me, Ty, the burden of proof will always be with God. Would I think that I could do a better job of proving God to you than He has? No. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
