Dear Atheist

Religious Atheist or Agnostic on checkmark royalty-free stock photo

(http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/religious-atheist-or-agnostic-on-checkmark-gm178100803-24725510?resource=AFF_IS_Linkconn_SP_www.freeimages.com_141052&asid=308966&cid=5418&lid=13)

Dear Atheist,

We had a discussion this week that I found to be an incredible experience.  I loved how it gave me the opportunity to dialogue with you and to get to know you on a more personal level.

First of all, I want to say that I respect the intelligence you have and also the tone of our discussion.  Your respectful consideration was noted and appreciated.

At the closure of our discussion, you challenged me to be open to other view-points.  You felt I had limited my thinking.

I respectfully must respond to you by asking you a question, “If you have seen the sun, which I assume you have, but someone else has never seen it and denies its existence, would you change your view to satisfy their denials?”  What if that person lives in Alaska too and rarely ever feels the warmth of the sun so they deny the existence of the heat of the sun?  What if you try to tell them that there are those who live who do see the sun, such as yourself?  What if you tell them that when it gets warmer in the “summer” and “spring” months that it’s because of the sun?  What if they then tell you that the warmth could be explained away by other means of energy?  If that person is unwilling to consider the possibility that there might be a sun, then it does not matter how many times you try to tell them the proofs (heat, seasons, gravity, etc…).  They’ll come up with another reason or theory to support the lack of its existence.

What if you tried to tell them that the reason why they are alive is because the sun gives warmth?  What if they then replied that it could be explained by some other means of energy and so they come up with theories and mathematical equations to equal their “expected” result?  To that person, you might appear as very irrational, with a “Lack of Imagination,” and with great “bias.”

The point, my dear friend, that I am trying to make is that it is impossible for me to prove God’s existence to you because you are unable or unwilling to consider its plausibility.

I have experienced and seen the God of the Bible, and I cannot deny His existence just because you do.  You can accuse me of being psychotic and imagining all of this in my head, but that does not concern me.  I am willing to base my life on the undeniable reality that there is a God who created life, who holds the universe together, and who loves me personally and unconditionally.

You challenged me to see other viewpoints, and I recognize that there are challenges to proving God’s existence.  It is a challenge to prove His existence and Biblical record to those who have excluded the factor of His force (influence) upon all mathematical equations in the scientific realm.

Perhaps, I should challenge you instead to see a different viewpoint.  What if instead of looking at the world with the assumption that God doesn’t exist, that instead you view the world with the assumption that He does?  Assume there was a huge flood that covered the entire world.  Assume that the earth is “young,” but that the trees, rocks, mountains, etc… were created in a mature state with an unknown amount of carbon.  Assume that God divided the continents for His purposes, as He states in the Bible, and that it wasn’t a Continental Drift but a God-division.  Assume that the stars were created the way they were — whether as a Supernova or a “new” star.  Assume that God created the species just as He said He did.  The list goes on…  Assume the Bible is correct.  Look for archeological evidence to support many Biblical records.  Consider how fossils are formed — not over millions of years — but over a catastrophic event like a flood.  Consider how we see floods that do cut away at cliffs and plunge houses into ravines as a result.  (See California floods.)  Consider why there are fossilized wave patterns that are visible in Colorado.

Perhaps, the scientific community is not as open-minded as they think.  They base all of their findings on their assumptions that there is no God; thus, their equations have much room for error.

Perhaps, I should ask how many times you have personally experienced or seen the Big Bang Theory?  Maybe, then I could accept your rationale.

There are many renowned scientists that believed the inerrancy of the Word of God and His Biblical record for mankind.  (See Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay, Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz, Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder, Pascal, Leibnitz, and Euler. These men were renowned in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, and mathematics.)

With all due respect, I cannot deny the reality of the God of the universe because I have “encountered” Him.  I see evidence of Him in my daily life, the world around me, in the very existence of life, and in the God-initiated Christian “Law of love.”  Call me “narrow-minded,” but I am unapologetic for what I know to be true.

You see, my belief in God isn’t only based on the historical record of the Bible but also in the confirmation of my own personal experiences with the God of the Bible.

 

 

Advertisements

50 thoughts on “Dear Atheist

  1. I will try to keep it short as possible and write so that I wont repeat what I already said 😀

    Well they could say that heat comes from elsewhere, it would be their hypothesis. Then I would try to do falsification and if I would not be able to do it and it would work under certain logical rules than I would start to call it a theory.

    I could easily look at the world as that God created it, why not no problem to me. Here comes the Occams razor. When we observe something, like radioactive decay we will guess that this also happened the same way in the past, that is logical because it does not seem that rules should change. Well than Occams razor will cut God off because it is something that does not need to be there because it works just as well without Him.

    This is not about open mindness, this is about whether you are trying to make things more complicated than they need to be just by adding something that does not YET need to be there.
    Why solve equation 2x=4y when you can use the equation x=2y.

    Well the equations are without God because there is no error yet (this depends on where, we know that quantum theory and theory of relativity can not be right at the same time). So actually there is no room for error because of the way science works. If something does not fits there we wont use it. If we have only certain tools and they are wrong in particular situations we will try to remake them or create new ones.

    1. Dear Dragallur,

      Hello again! 🙂

      I am going to give a math equation because I know you love math and are good at it to explain myself further. I know this is way below your level in math, but we’ll keep it simple for everyone’s sake. 😉

      We all know that to find the circumference of a circle, we need the following information: C=2πR. The equation works accurately every time. Our circumference will be correct only though if we have the correct radius. The problem isn’t the equation; the problem is with the information being used within the equation. What if I say the radius is 4. My circumference is going to equal 25.13. Looks great, right? The problem is what if the radius isn’t 4, but it really is 6? Now, I have an equation that works and numbers that fit the expected equation, but my premise (the radius) is wrong, and now my answer may seem to work, but it is actually incorrect. That’s all I am saying.

      The equations work great; the problem is with the values entered into the equation.

      Have you ever considered how amazing it is that we have a world that operates reliably and predictably on mathematical equations? It’s even more amazing if we think this all happened by random chance!

      1. I am not sure if I get your point with the circumference of the circle.

        If the radius is 4 then the circumference must be (roughly) 25.13.
        If the radius is 6 then the circumference must be (roughly) 37.7

        It can not change because of the way circle works so I do not get what you want to say by this.

        Well lets just guess that without predictability of mathematical equations it would be hell of a mess here, maybe it happened by chance, maybe there were not many options and maybe all of them were quite similar, we just do not know.

      2. Dear Dragallur,

        Yes, I realized after giving that as an example, you could use other methods to prove that the circumference was wrong.

        As you know so long as you have as many equations as there are unknowns, you can solve the problem.

        The issue here though is what if there is a God, which is my entire premise, then there is this force (God-force) that we haven’t included in the equation, which does affect the results. The challenge is then how do we find an equation to equal God in order to account for His effects upon our results?

        How do you give an equation for an Infinite, Supreme Being who is unpredictable and does as He wills?

        For example, in the Bible, we read how one day He made the sun “stand still.” In other words, time stood still. (He did it to serve His purposes to protect His people.). Another time, He made the “sun go back,” which means time was reversed for a few hours.

        The problem is we are trying to contain God within a mathematical formula, and this is impossible.

      3. I understand now, but we can explain it in different way than adding unpredictable God. We can explain it in different ways until it works, if it does not than there is some problem and we need to change the equation, slowly getting towards the core and understanding of the Universe, maybe one day we will find out that there are certain laws there but there is God who can change them anyway, but this simply did not happen yet.

      4. My first thoughts when I read it? Well he wrote it pretty persuasively I must admit that. But I will not believe what one page says so easily, the thing is that science will “believe” on what it observes no matter what is good or bad so I will try to study on this some more to prove what many and many scientists work with.

      5. Feel to correspond with him. He is a scientist and can certainly answer your questions. He stated more eloquently than I did the whole matter with carbon dating: we don’t know how much carbon was present at the beginning so how can we measure it?

      6. Yeah I agree with that, it makes sense while there are so much more arguments for old Earth so it does not really matter if this one is really not working for longer time

  2. Dragallur,

    There is plenty of archeological proof to verify the Bible, but I have my own personal witness to testify. I know you can’t understand this because you haven’t experienced it, but it is quite real — just as real as you and I having this conversation right now. 🙂

    Read back over my earlier analogy — the story of the blind person and the sun. It parallels so well what is happening in our conversations. You believe that because the scientific community — well some of it — has come up with an theory and seems to be able to have mathematical equations to fit the “evidence” that it is truth.

    Ignoring the fact that there are lots of “holes” in many of their proofs, there is also this issue… Let’s go back to the blind person.

    The blind person disbelieves your claim that there is this thing called the sun. They’ve never seen it thus they deny its existence. So you try to explain how its effects can be felt and even that person’s existence is dependent upon the reality of the sun. Yet, the blind person explains it away by other “rationale.” They come up with another form of energy that could explain the effects of the sun, and they even have supporting mathematical equations to support their theory. All sounds great to the blind person. Their theory works… perhaps… (Again, I do not believe evolution works as it cannot even be reproduced in our actual world today.)

    The problem is their theory is just a theory and is not truth. Maybe, some other form of energy could mimic some or many of the effects of the sun, but that does not change the fact that we see the sun and know it’s the sun. By seeing the sun, we are able to study it and then consider its effects upon our world.

    The problem is with the atheist, he ignores any possibility that there is a God and tries to explain life without God. His theories might use a lot of imagination, but that doesn’t make them truthful.

    This is the difference between truth and knowledge.

    Knowledge or scientific facts may be something we can manipulate to support our theories. We can always create a new explanation for an idea and try to make it work with mathematical equations to support our theories.

    Knowledge can be manipulated; while, truth is only truthful to itself. It isn’t manipulated by the whims of the one gathering the “evidence.”

    Back to the blind person… The blind person may have a “working” theory to support his ideas, but that does not make his theory truth.

    The sun exists — whether or not he acknowledges it or not.

    I absolutely know personally that God exists so no mathematical equation or creative scientific theory can explain Him away.

    Knowing He exists, I can then see His effects upon this life and understand them in “light” of His influence upon them.

    1. Oh hi again, I somehow missed this comment, WordPress did not notify me and I thought that you did not answer.

      What I meant was: how do you know that the bible is the word of God?

      Scientific community is not ignoring any holes, if there is some part missing that it is just missing because scientific community was not yet able to come with solution. Science is not close there are so many things that are not answered.

      Here are some examples of evolution: http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7-animals-that-are-evolving-right-before-our-eyes.html
      It can be reproduced on small scale using short living organisms plus when astronomy and geology also work this way, you can not go to past and see a rock but you can learn a lot from what you can observe now.

      “Theory is just a theory and it is not the truth” oh really? Pardon me but.. theory is a collection of hypothesis that were not falsificated yet so as far as we know they are simply right. Plus, hypotheticly you can not be sure of anything because you perceive everything with your own senses, so actually everything can be just a theory and no more, you can not say that all swans are white because you have not seen all of them, as simple as that.

      Yes we try to explain life without God because you know what happens when you say that there is God who can do ANYTHING?
      Whole world crashes because: if we accept God, anybody can explain anything using the argument that God did it, this is not much of a perspective.
      There are more but I could not find the page that had the list..

      Yes, but how do you find out that the truth is actually true? You need some evidence for it, this is scientific data, and it is scientific because there is the least amount of bias and false information possible.

      Yes it does not make the theory necessary truth because you do not know if anything is true.
      You say that there is Sun whether one acknowledges it or not? How do you tell I wonder, you can tell it only by looking and by feeling the Sun, but you have no proof that it is truth, your idea that Sun exists is only a theory, theory to which another 7 billion people believe and many more animals though, do they really? What if you just made them up in your mind?

      You can see the effect upon life, though I am sure that most of it can be explained by science. You see, you can say that Earth is here because God wanted so, or it is here because there was a cloud of particles that collided and stucked up together to create planet.

      1. If I understand correctly, there is one assumption and that is that Bibli is right. And it all stand on this. (I have not heard it whole yet)

      2. Actually, the false or imitation has to try to prove its credibility. Truth though is truthful only to itself and doesn’t have to prove anything (emphasis on the “have to”). For example, real leaders don’t have to prove they are a leader; they just are. God doesn’t have to prove He is God. He is. Sometimes, He does that but only for our sakes, to strengthen our faith. Only those who want to see though will see. What God says is truth — regardless of whether we believe it or reject it. Yes, history, archaeology, and science have verified the Bible on numerous occasions. Again, if you want to explain something away, that can do be done with just about anything.

      3. Believing in a flying spaghetti monster would only be right if it is true. It’s not our belief that makes something truthful. It’s the object of our faith that determines the credibility of our belief. I know God personally and have witnessed His character too much to deny the truthfulness and reliability of it.

      4. I understand your query. You are saying that you can’t believe in what I believe in just because I say it’s true and have witnessed God. I understand that. The question I ask you though is, “What is the risk in asking God to reveal Himself to you?” …Not in mockery or jest but in sincerity? The question is, “What are you afraid of in finding out that perhaps God does exist?” We have so many motivations that influence our ability to perceive the world around us. Those motivations can be fear, pride, bitterness, etc… They can be positive motivations as well. The point is our motivations will affect our perceptions, and our motivations are often so easily manipulated and deceived. I personally don’t have the ability to perceive truth. It is the power of God’s Spirit at work in my life that gives me the ability to perceive truth. When I hear truth, I know it. It is hard to put this into words, but everyone who has experienced the same thing as me knows what I mean. There’s this “knowing” that the supernatural has touched the natural. That’s when belief is born.

      5. Simply because I do not know if I would not be fooling myself thinking that I feel God and his truth, this is the power of science. Maybe there is God who knows, he can not be scientifically proven and there is no fundamental reason I should trust your feeling. Also science can explain all the things that you say that God did so there may as well be God or Flying Spaghetti Monster, it does not really matter! I could ask God why he does not reveal Himself just like that. I could also ask Flying Spaghetti Monster to reveal himself and who knows what would happen.

      6. Guess, you need to become a Biblical scholar then. 😉 I know quite a few people who started out trying to disprove the Bible and as a result became believers. Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel, are just a few examples. I think God is big enough to preserve His Word, and He has!!! I love how archaeology does back the Bible! My friend, I have a life to live so I will talk to you more later. 🙂

      7. If I could, I would buy this book for you, but you really need to read the book, “The Case For A Creator” by Lee Strobel. (Sorry. Can’t italicize in comments.) He’s a journalist/atheist who interviewed scientists regarding evolution. His research, interviews, and the “evidence” he procured changed his conclusions. It’s a fascinating book and discusses in-depth the many “hiccups” that confound scientists. Great read!

      8. Yes and no. There are always going to be the opinions out there. Opinions really don’t mean a lot. I have learned to live my life outside of that constraining box. The opinions of others can distract and impede us from pursuing what really matters. If I lived my life based on the opinions of others, I would be living a life of imprisonment. I choose to live a life of freedom found in the truth. 🙂

      9. Then I recommend you to watch the debate as you will find out that in my OPINION Ken Ham was kind of not able to respond to reasonable amount of Nye’s arguments.

      1. Thanks, BTW, for being able to participate in this discussion with intelligence and courtesy! I really appreciate that about you. 🙂 Praying for your day… God bless you!

  3. Pingback: Dear Christian: I Had To Respond To This Condescending Letter To An Atheist - Godless Mom

    1. Dear Godless Mom, I am sorry you thought I was being condescending in my blog post. That was certainly not my intention. Rather, my purpose in writing this blog was a follow-up on a lengthy discussion with an atheist. You have a right to believe what you do and so do I. I may respectfully disagree, and I have that right — just as you do. Disagreeing and articulating my own faith does not make me condescending nor ignorant. This is my response to the challenge that I am ignorant just because I do believe in the existence of God. I wish you the best. [I ended this with “God bless you,” but it created such offense that I am removing it. As clarification, as one who believes in God, wishing someone a “God bless you” is one of the kindest things I can say, and that was my intention. I apologize that it may have come across as something else.] Thank you for your time! Have a wonderful day! Respectfully yours, Grace

  4. Salty Slug

    Just as an FYI, Lee Strobel is very much NOT an atheist. Nor is he an employed journalist. From his own website: “Atheist-turned-Christian Lee Strobel, the former award-winning legal editor of The Chicago Tribune, ” Not an atheist, not a journalist.
    If you want a great dissection of the bible, I would recommend, “Misquoting Jesus” by biblical scholar Bart Ehrman. He is an excellent writer and knows the bible better than any of us here.
    From Ehrman’s site: “Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and is a leading authority on the New Testament and the history of early Christianity.”

    1. He was an atheist at one time before he began to interview scientists and hear the unpublished doubts and inconsistencies they observed. His “research” changed his mind. Thank you for the clarification! Yes, he was an editor.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s