Posted on 11/19/2007 6:06:14 AM PST by Kaslin
no but for a lot of converted atheists belief in God comes first, conversion to Christianity follows later. After they come to terms with believing in God, the next question they often turn to is “which God” Lets hope this is true for this man as well
for reference, even if a couple of years old...
Interview of Antony Flew by Gary Habermas
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf
Biola page (source for interview above)
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/
I think the only thing we agree on is that you don't know how to read.
The mixture does tend to explode.
On closer observation it becomes apparent that this is due to the muslim component.
Are you now agreeing that atheists do not know that nothing is revealed (despite your earlier statement that they "claim that nothing is revealed")? And if one claims something that one does not know, is that a faith claim? Do you see how an outsider might find these statements all a bit contradictory?
I think that we can agree that you don't know how to write what you mean : )
We are playing with semantics a bit here. Here is the definition that he is using for reveal. "2. Specifically, to communicate (that which could not be known or discovered without divine or supernatural instruction or agency). " Obviously no self respecting Atheist would fall for that trap.
Discovered is a much more appropriate word than revealed.
Arguments are semantics. It's difficult to have a philosophical argument without semantics.
You can substitute any word or shade of nuance there for "revealed." The problem remains. The atheist claims that there is no god. The atheist does not know that there is no god. Therefore, the atheist has made a claim which he/she cannot substantiate. Therefore, the atheist has made a faith-based claim. You can argue your faith is in more valid evidence. But you have no conclusive evidence. That you cannot get around.
Jezebel believed in a god, Baal. She wasn't forgiven.
Let’s hope that it works that way.
But what does James say?
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
You are right. I can't prove a negative. I can't prove that Zeus isn't a god at Olympus and I can't prove that a leprachaun isn't going to give me a pot of gold if I can just make it to the end of the rainbow.
So I guess your question is if I have faith that a pot of gold doesn't exist at the end of the rainbow? Hmm, even though I know that a rainbow is circular that doesn't prove that it might not have an end under some circumstances, so there is no way to disprove the pot of gold theory. And since there is the possibility that I might be wrong, am I exercising faith when I come to the conclusion that no there can't be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? In fact there are an infinity of things that might be but aren't.
So how to resolve this dilemma? I guess the question is if I can have faith in a negative? Something like an imaginary number, perhaps? That's it!
Imaginary faith. Since God is an imaginary being I have imaginary faith that he doesn't exist : )
So we agree. You can't prove you're right. You believe you are. It is a faith-based proposition to which you hold.
Make that an imaginary faith and I will agree with you : )
It's all semantics. You can have your imaginary faith. :-)
I wonder if Gary Habermas’s debates with Flew were instrumental in his awakening?
So we agree. You can't prove you're right. You believe you are. It is a faith-based proposition to which you hold.
Lets say that I had never heard of The GOD Despator or imagined his existence. Would you say that I have faith that he doesn't exist? I don't think that a rational person could say that I can have faith in something that I had never conceived of.
Now lets say that I see the village doom and gloomer, whose predictions are always wrong, with a sign over his head saying that the world is coming to an end and that Despator is going to kill everyone because they didn't obey him. The question is now that I have heard of this Despator do I have to have faith in not believing his ravings? I would certainly have to have faith if I believed him, but does disbelief require faith? Lets say that I completely forget the idiot five steps later. Have I now lost the faith that Despator doesn't exist?
I saw a commercial on late night TV, it said,"Forget everything you know about slipcovers." So I did. And it was a load off my mind. Then the commercial tried to sell me slipcovers, and I didn't know what the h*** they were.-Mitch Hedberg
Your argument is interesting, but it is not the argument of a committed atheist. That person has no faith invested in either the existence of Despator or in his non-existence. The atheist is invested specifically in the non-existence of a deity.
Back to your example, the disbelief is based upon some evidence (the village doom and gloomer has bad predictions). But disbelief requires some sort of contrary belief. In this case, the disbelief requires a belief that the nutjob is wrong again (probably with good reason). So that belief that the nutjob is wrong again requires some sort of faith, however inconsequential.
I think you think that a proposition that requires faith in all aspects of life is wrong-headed (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). But that is how we live our lives. From one faith-based assumption to another. I have faith my company car will start in the morning. If I didn't, I might not turn the key without a full diagnostic checkup. That faith is sometimes ill-placed. But on some level, it is a faith.
OK, I will agree that it takes some faith to be an atheist. A vanishingly small amount but heh maybe Zeus is God on Olympus. I can't prove that he isn't : )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.