How would you reply to the questions in these videos. I would like to know cause if i was asked these i would not know how to reply. the first one is rather large, about 21 min and the second one is only about 7.
also why would god allow so many things like these to happen in his world?
While I do have various reasons to believe in the existence of God....I would first like to hear the atheist's primary arguments for the non-existence of God.
Just to top off the cake with frosting, the existence of evil is by far the greatest antagonism presented in the face of Christianity that I have encountered. However, by logical necessity, evil can not hold prevalence if God is jettisoned out of the framework of existence. If there is such a thing as evil, then you are presuming that there is also such a thing as good. Yet, if evil and good are undeniable facets of one's existence, then an unchanging Moral Law must be invoked in order to distinguish good from evil. The Moral Law is the absolute reference point by which there is no other means to logically maintain that good and evil are not merely illusory.
Now if there is a Moral Law, then there must necessarily be a Moral Law Giver. Yet, isn't that Giver the very Being you are trying to disprove and not prove? Consequentially, there cannot be evil unless God exists. The atheist must first testify to God's existence before he may even begin to coherently hash the evidence of evil and suffering as a subversion against Christianity.
the devil goes into their heads and tells them to do this
Now if you recall from my original argument, the claim of the atheist is not merely that God may not or can not exist, but that God necessarily does not exist. While, the claim of the theist is the positing of a Being who's very existence lends to the cause of our own, the atheist is also presenting a positive in his claim. The individual who claims to be absolutely certain that God does not exist is positing the absolute negation of a Being whose control is sovereign over all men.
Furthermore, as you have pointed out, it becomes preposterous to claim that one need have "tangible" (or even philosophically infallible) evidence for the non-existence of an unheard of creature, such as a pink elephant. In fact, you can never hold a truly absolute certainty for the non-existence of any positive, without contingently and implicitly claiming to first have absolute knowledge of the universe and its mysteries. (For all we can tell, there may in fact be a pink elephant extant within other undiscovered systems in the universe). Yet, doesn't this same argumentation apply to the absolute negation of God? How can you be absolutely certain that God does not exist unless you claim to first hold absolute knowledge of all the universe and its truths. You would in essence be making yourself a god, if not the singular consummate expression of God.
It is, however, unnecessary to have absolute knowledge of the universe prior to claiming the positive of any truth. For all you need is to view one instance of that truth, to claim it absolutely exists. For example, an individual may not logically claim that a white dice with one dot on it can absolutely not exist. For, unless he has traveled the vast corners of the universe, it may be possible that a white dice with one dot does indeed exist. Yet, that same individual does not need to travel the distant expanses of the universe to claim that a white dice with one dot does exist. He only needs to find a single instance of that dice actually existing.
By the same token, Dr. William J. Wainright best explicates;
"For the atheist, as well as the theist, is implicitly making an existence claim. The theist finds the existence of a world consisting in a set of contingent beings that are grounded in the free activity of a necessary being intrinsically more probable than that of a world consisting only in a set of contingent beings. He therefore believes that the burden of proof is on one who denies that the former is in fact more probable then the latter. Atheists like Flew believe that the existence of a world consisting only in a set of contingent beings is intrinsically more probable then the existence of the theist's world, and that theists therefore bear the burden of showing that the probability of their world is in fact higher then that of the atheist's. On the face of it both theists and atheists are making positive existence claims..." (Does God Exist Chp 5).
It therefore seems amply pertinent, to me, that the atheist making the assertion not only establish grounds for doubting Christianity's truth claims but that he proposes his own claims in support of his positing an atheistic worldview.
Was I to grant that atheists need not be not required to believe in an absolute standard of good and evil, they most certainly do demonstrate such belief in their everyday existence. I have yet to find an atheist who believes that evil is inherently illusory and existentially supports that claim by his behavior. For, if the atheist truly believed that evil was illusory then he would admittedly be connoting that the massacre of Jews during the Holocaust, the destruction and abuse of children in third-world countries, the rape of innocent victims and the punitive strikes of a depraved murderer are all equivalent to the gentleness, love, beneficence and care of a nurturing mother towards her sick child. Even the atheist Nietzsch did not approve of absolute massacre towards all men throughout the globe. In fact, he declared the reign of the diplomatic supermen that were to rule.....a reign that he surely would have pronounced as holding at least a synch of absolute good.
Yet, even if an atheist was so depraved as to believe that all occurrences were intrinsically and morally univocal, he would not be able to admit that all claims are inherently relativistic. All one would need to claim is that the claim that all truths are relative is a relativistic claim in itself. According to the subjectivist worldview, such a claim can not be infringed upon with any absolute logic. Would an atheist admittedly approve of absolute censorship of his own beliefs? Of course not; for then he would be unable to carry out his claim to good and evil being relativistic.
The atheist who asserted the belief that it was both good and evil to censor whatever one had the right to say, would be essentially permitting others to completely silence him. Or, to place the problem in a different shade of light, the atheist who concurred with the belief that his claims were as good as the theist's claim to absolutism could not hope to profess that absolutism was a corrupt worldview. He would essentially be self-refuting his own belief that all moral beliefs are relativistic.
Ultimatley, you may declare to believe in relativism, however, you may not existentially live up to such a belief (in an unwavering manner) without first entertaining the possibility of psychosis. Ironically, it was Nietzsch who later declared himself to be the manifestation of the one Man-God he despised most. Nietzsch had undergone such a drastic change in his psychology that he at one point earnestly believed himself to be the manifestation Jesus Christ in the flesh.
Furthermore, I see no logical reason to grant that atheists need not believe in an absolute standard of good and evil. The claim that good and evil are not governed by an absolute Moral Law can only emanate from the grounded worldview that absolutes do not exist. For no individual may confidently propound that absolutes do exist, but that evil and good simply do not consign themselves to such absolutism. Ultimately, his claim would be purely speculative and necessarily subjective. For on what grounds are there to posit that good and evil are not absolute but other truths within a universe or personal worldview can be? Wouldn't it be the grater part of humility and digression to admit that if some absolutes do exist then good and evil might also be integral to such a realm of absolute? Or does the individual claim that there can be absolutely no means of finding absolutes in good and evil?
The atheist who does claim to deny all possibility of an absolute, ensnares himself in an even greater plight. Such an individual has denied himself the right to make any brass or definitive statements. Immediately, the burden of proof and of corrective action falls on the individual who claims that there absolutely can be no absolutes in the universe. His own statement testifies to the absolute negation of any absolutes….producing a self-refuting claim. In any case, the Christian may happily retort that the belief that there are absolutes in the world can not be absolutely wrong. On the basis of logical necessity and existential relevance, the prominent professor’s declaration that there is no God seems to me to be much more preposterous and credulous then the little uneducated child’s confidence that a God does truly exist.
God bless you.
As for this nutcase........i think i know why he's stressed out