50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence

MUSINGS ON IRAQ: U.S. Boots On The Ground In Iraq, Advisers Deployed To Anbar And Diyala

2014-10-18T15:51:00.001-07:00

MUSINGS ON IRAQ: U.S. Boots On The Ground In Iraq, Advisers Deployed To Anbar And Diyala

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 2:125-126

2012-09-02T01:40:00.001-07:00

I was unable to verify your next reference, since the link you provide only takes one to the newly-designed front page of the "Skeptical Inquirer", where I get another 404 error message. You don't even supply a link to support your comment that follows,

"This study was later proven to be completely fraudulent. However, everyone who cut out the original article in the NYTimes and posted it on their refrigerators still has that article as "proof" that prayer works."

So how, exactly, was the study proven fraudulent, by whom, in what manner, or am I just supposed to take your rather questionable word for it? No thanks.

As for your next link (of which you claim proof of fraudulence), all I see is a re-visitation of a rather famous case of a study that apparently proves the effectiveness of "long-distance praying", a concept which in all honesty, I have to admit to being a sceptic myself. Nowhere in this article, however, does it claim that the study was ever proven fraudulent. I have no idea what you saw in the article, but I'll leave the final decision as to what theory it supports, up to any reader that chooses to peruse it for themselves.

Your last reference links us to an article about the lack of benefit, of "optimism", which is yet another article that disproves its own theory in the last paragraph that it contains,

"It is disappointing they don't reflect on quality of life," McGinnis said. "We did not have any illusions that optimism influences therapy but we do believe that optimism and hope does influence the quality of life a patient has." (Emphasis mine.)

An improvement in the patient's "quality of life" is still a result, and as such, it can't be proven by this article that prayer has no effect. Rather, it just proves that what was lacking, was the result the practitioners were hoping for.

It must also be noted that the remainder of this "proof" of yours centers on claims that appear to indicate, that you are still referring to the above-given reference site, when in fact, the article makes no mention of "superstition" or "coincidence" at all. Once again, it seems to me ,you are trying to pass your opinion off as supported fact, without showing any of the support which you make claim to.

And all I can say about the argument you present at the bottom of your page in the box entitled "Understanding The Rationalizations", is that you would first have to show me the "many" believers who would even say such a thing. The statement, as it stands, "...because God must remain hidden..." is ludicrous at best, and is easily proven to be so by the following Scripture,

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

Romans 1:20

So unless you can show me a Christian who neither believes in Creation, or the Holy Word, I'm just going to have to chalk this up to another of your many opinions, unsupported by any actual fact.

Since this brings us to the start of another of your so-called proofs, we will submit this Blog entry, short as it is, and pick up our discussion tomorrow.

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 2:120-125

2012-09-01T00:15:00.002-07:00

In regard to the first three stipulations that you offer in support of your view, we can respond with "facts" of our own.

You claim that :

- It does not matter who prays.

-It does not matter if we pray to God, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Ra or any other human god.

-It does not matter what we pray about.

I won't dispute the given designations in your second point since I see all of the offered names as possible names for God, depending on where and when the person lived, how they had been trained in Spirituality, and the particular environment they were/are surrounded by. It is much more important to me to know if these people were/are sincere in their search for a higher power, and less important what names they may refer to that Power as. But I certainly disagree with your unsubstantiated claim that it doesn't matter, as though you are simply negating all those possibilities out of hand. How could you, as an unbeliever, know what would, or would not matter, since you are incapable of offering a prayer to any of them? Without any genuine experience, just what is your claim based on?

Your first and third stipulations, on the other hand, I would dispute, if I hadn't already spent over a hundred manuscript pages doing just that, and clearly showing that it does indeed matter who is praying, as well as what they pray about. There is no reason to re-examine the same matters all over again. If you are uncertain what I'm talking about, just re-read the section above which is headed "The Non-Supporting Scriptures". So once again, the questions remain, "On just what facts are you basing these arrogant statements, and how could you possibly know that nothing has happened in response to any prayer prayed anywhere?". For an individual who claims not to believe in a higher power, you certainly are trying very hard to prove your own omniscience, a concept I'm just not buying.

The next paragraph in your argument is yet another striking instance (despite its general redundancy) of how you try to substitute your own personal opinion, and examples that lack any sense of certainty, for what you then claim as "proof", or "fact" in your articles. I will include an excerpt of this paragraph, so that anyone reading this has no need (after an initial verification) to keep flipping back and forth between our pages.

"If we perform scientific, double-blind tests on prayer, and if the prayers involve something concrete and measurable (for example, healing people with cancer), we know that there is zero effect from prayer. Every single "answered prayer" is nothing more than a coincidence. Both scientific experiments and your everyday observations of the world show this to be the case every single time."

Since, as I stated earlier, I have already answered the argument you offer, yet once again, in the first part of this paragraph, we can begin with the statement you make at the end of the first sentence, "we know that there is zero effect from prayer". And you would know this...how? I mean, your statement is quite clear. "We know" is another way of saying, "we possess the knowledge", and "zero effect" is another way of saying "no effect" which implies "anywhere, in any way, of any kind". Wow, if I was to take that as stated, then you know more than any other human being that ever lived, past or present. Truly, you are the omniscient one, and I have finally met the god that I have been searching for, for so long now. Of course, this brings your "proof" crashing down around your omnipotent ankles, since your argument is not that you are a god, but that there isn't any God.

In any scientific experiment that I have heard of, that is even remotely similar to the ones you suggest a little further on in your argument, the practitioners realize, even if you don't, that they have to allow for an error of roughly 5% (even more in many cases), in order that the placebo effect can be accounted for. Since you claim that you have absolute knowledge that the experiments you mention were 100% accurate in proving that "answered prayer" was a myth, then I have to conclude, that in the absence of any answered prayers at all, what those experiments actually seem to prove, is the existence of a Being of such magnitude and amazing power, that he could mask His existence at will, in absolutely every case where it may be called into question. It would seem that what your statements prove, is that God exists , but that He was just unaware that He should have allowed for the placebo effect. I suppose that would be because even though God could create an entire universe by speaking, He still wouldn't understand modern medicine. Lol.

Well, I can't verify, or disprove the first example that you supply. This is simply because your "link" merely takes me to a page where I could actually read the article in question only if I was willing to subscribe to, or purchase from, the "Boston Globe", the piece that you refer to. I am not prepared to do either, but neither am I willing to accept your word for anything that you can't verify in a more acceptable manner.

The second "article" that you provide a link to, returns a 404 error, which means that no article of that nature exists at the location given. At this point, I must admit to being quite disappointed in the supposed supports for your already indefensible position.

Now in your third attempt at providing support, there actually does exist, the article by which you choose to do so. That is a good start. However, the first comment you make is blatantly false, and I am left wondering if you thought that any Christian who might read this would be just too stupid to notice. Here is your comment:

"In this article we find an amazing quote where theologians and religious leaders declare that prayer has no actual effect:"

I have highlighted the part of your comment with which I take exception, and a quick look at the paragraph that you are quoting will show us why:

"Religious leaders will breathe a sigh of relief at the news that so-called intercessory prayer is medically ineffective. In a large and much touted scientific study, one group of patients was told that strangers would pray for them, a second group was told strangers might or might not pray for them, and a third group was not prayed for at all. The $2.4 million study found that the strangers' prayers did not help patients' recovery."

You will notice that nowhere in this paragraph given above do we see anything about religious leaders declaring that prayer has no actual effect. What the paragraph does state is that the writer of the article "feels" that religious leaders will breath a sigh of relief, when they discover that prayer is "medically ineffective", a statement that is in itself refuted later in the same article where it states:

"The news from science will not lead religious people to stop praying for others. Prayers are expressions of empathy that strengthen a caring community and bring comfort to those who are suffering. Comfort in this context undoubtedly has therapeutic health benefits." (Emphasis mine.)

And maybe, it is this "comfort" that they receive, which is the very answer to prayer that you say doesn't exist. I would be interested to know how you feel such a "spiritual" benefit could ever be tested for through scientific means that are designed to work only with the physical realm. Let me save you the trouble of such mental exertion by telling you here and now that it just isn't possible, which is why your entire suggestion that we "statistically analyze prayer" simply, does not hold water.

It will also serve to prove your error, in citing this article as support for your position, if we take a look at the last paragraph in the piece you refer to. Obviously the writer is demonstrating his own sense of the "limitations" of science when he writes:

"We should note that the impetus for this recent research has come almost entirely from scientists, not from religious leaders. It seems that no credible theologian has been involved in planning, directing or even consulting on such studies. But scientists who conduct research on religious practice should at least consult reputable theologians. Had they done so to begin with a considerable amount of money could have been saved. Scientists who undertake the work of theologians are as reckless as theologians who pretend to be scientists." (Emphasis mine.)

The entire next paragraph in your "proof" is simply a restating of that which you have already claimed, and which we have proven to be in error.

"This is a remarkable example of "positive spin" -- religious leaders are "breathing a sigh of relief" because prayer has been shown to be meaningless. The fact that prayer is a total waste of time does not matter to them. It does not matter that all of Jesus' promises about prayer in the Bible have been proven completely false." (Emphasis mine.)

Each of the three items I have highlighted above are examples of gross exaggeration at best, and deliberate attempts at deception at worst. And even the statement about religious leaders "breathing a sigh of relief" is nothing more than the writer's opinion, since as the article itself makes quite clear, no reputable theologians were consulted during this "experiment". So how could he possibly know for certain that theologians were in any way relieved by the results of a study that they never took part in? It appears that up to this point at least, all we have are exaggeration and opinion, but no solid proof of any kind. Maybe we will find some when we resume tomorrow.

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:115-120

2012-08-31T00:27:00.001-07:00

So here we are, two words into your latest "proof", and already we come up against another case of "required definition" (one of the main problems when dealing with "personal opinions"). In what way exactly, are you using the word "fact"? As you can clearly see below from the included "Wikipedia" excerpt, there exist several definitions of that word, depending on the context in which it is found. Now we've already, in the earlier parts of this work, ascertained your personal difficulties in remaining in context when dealing with someone else's writing, so maybe, after we take a quick look at the "Wikipedia" entry, I could offer my services in helping you to determine the context of your own writing. In the following Wikipedia excerpt, all cases of emphasis are my own.

"The word fact derives from the Latin factum, and was first used in English with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed", a use that is now obsolete.^[1] The common usage of "something that has really occurred or is the case" dates from the middle of the sixteenth century.^[2]

Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste. This use is found in such phrases as, It is a fact that the cup is blue or Matter of fact,^[3] and "... not history, nor fact, but imagination."

Fact also indicates a matter under discussion deemed to be true or correct, such as to emphasize a point or prove a disputed issue; (e.g., "... the fact of the matter is ...").^[4][5]

Alternatively, fact may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a "true fact",^[6] (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English.^[7]

Fact may also indicate findings derived through a process of evaluation, including review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise; as distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation.^[8] This use is reflected in the terms "fact-find" and "fact-finder" (e.g., "set up a fact-finding commission").^[9]

Facts may be checked by reason, experiment, personal experience, or may be argued from authority. Roger Bacon wrote,

"If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics."^[10]"

Now you may claim you are utilizing the word "fact" in any one, or more, of the looser forms allowed for in the above definitions, but I would have to point out that that would not appear to be true. I suggest that there is only one of the multiple definitions that you can claim to be making use of, and that is the definition I have highlighted in red. My reason for this statement is very simple; the title of your "proof". Within that title, you suggest that we "Statistically analyze prayer".

The word "statistically" is the adverbial form of the word "statistical'" which means quite simply "pertaining to statistics", and in turn, the word "statistics" is defined as, "the branch of mathematics that deals with the organization, analysis, collection, and interpretation of statistical data[1]" If you are in fact claiming to "statistically" analyze prayer, you have placed yourself outside the realm of opinion, and into the realm of the scientific (mathematics is a scientific discipline), which restricts you to using the more limited, and precise meaning of the word "fact", that I have highlighted in the "Wikipedia" definition previously given. Your own stated words are, "The fact is, God never answers any prayers" and in addition to that you make claim to the idea that the concept of "answered prayer" is an "illusion".

So now, the onus is on you, to prove your statements of "fact". Otherwise, your opening statement fails, and takes your entire "proof" with it. On the other hand, all I have to do, is prove that your opening comment is not completely accurate, thus reducing it to a matter of opinion, not fact , and once again, your "proof" fails. And remember, you specifically said, "God never answers any prayer." So now, it's time to look closer at what you have offered in support of your statements of supposed "fact".

You make the claim that the concept of "answered prayer" is nothing but an "illusion", and state that this can be proved by scientific experiment. You then, once again, suggest the same method that you suggested in "Proof #1" (which means that this is not a second proof at all, only a re-working of the first). Well, I have already shown in my rebuttal of that previous suggestion, sufficient reason why that method simply will not work, and there is no reason to state those views all over again. So let us try this from a different angle, and concentrate on your claim of ability to prove anything by scientific experiment.

To start with, let us take a look at the views of those who apparently know a lot more about the "scientific method" and its limitations than you do. The following excerpt is a simple one, taken from an internet article, which you can peruse by following the given link:

"...In fact, all scientific theories are unprovable...".

The author of this particular site is apparently a man of science, stating a simple truth (or at least his opinion of the truth). The excerpt that follows, on the other hand, is in itself a reasonable question, presumably from a man of faith, and once again you can follow the link to read it for yourself.

"If science can't even disprove the existence of unicorns, how can it disprove the existence of God?" - Gregory Koukl.

The author of the site in question, also states in the same article,

"Science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything." (Emphasis mine.)

Just to show you how far I can take this idea, consider this. Suppose it was the intention of an individual such as yourself to prove to me by experimentation, that the active (turned on) element on a stove-top was "hot". They further add, they can prove this in a number of experimental ways including the following. A thermometer placed in contact with the element would easily show a high temperature, which is the accepted definition of hot. To which I answer, "No, that is an incorrect assumption, since what it really shows is that the temperature is higher than what might be considered cold by some. But "hot", and "higher", are relative terms. That element is far colder than the surface of the sun for instance, or even burning phosphorous. Therefore, it is only "hot" in comparison to certain other things.

Alright, they tell me, then it can be substantiated by having some brave individual actually touch it, and they will surely report that it is hot. To which I answer yet again, "No, that is another incorrect assumption, which I, in this case can attempt to prove, by referring them to the following quote from yet another internet article (to which I have also provided the link).

"Across the world about a few hundred people suffer from one of a variety of diseases that make them completely unable to feel pain from the time they're born."

To these individuals, owing to their absence of extreme sensation, the element would appear to be neutral in its relation to hot or not hot. And remember, these people still have some concept of hot and cold. For instance, they would still be able to tell the difference between warm and cool weather conditions, since those conditions are usually not severe enough to elicit from the offended nerve-endings, a pain response. To support this specific claim, I refer you again to another quote from the same article as that which is offered above.

"These people were able to feel hot and cold, sense pressure, and could tell sharp objects touching their skin from blunt ones... But none of them felt any pain."

So in the end, it would seem that the only thing that can be said for sure is that "hot", like "cold", and virtually every other sensation you can name, is never a matter of "fact", but one of "perception". And perception varies with the individual. All that can really be stated in this case is that a stove-top element is at many times going to be perceived as hot, but not in all cases, or by all individuals. Thus, "hot" becomes a matter of personal opinion, that depends entirely on the context in which it exists, and it cannot be called "fact", in the sense of something that seeks to be as exact as science. And that is where we will pick this up tomorrow.

[1] "Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary", Berkley Books, New York, 1984, p.673

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 2:112-115

2012-08-30T00:07:00.001-07:00

Erroneous Proof #2

Statistically Analyze Prayer

Before we dive right into analyzing that which you offer as "proof" in this instance, it must be noted that I will have to approach this task, in a manner quite a bit different than that which we dealt with earlier. The obvious reason for this, is that unlike the way you presented your first argument, you have this time offered no supporting Scriptures, misquoted, misused, altered, or of any other nature. This entire "proof" (#2) of yours consists of nothing but opinion. So let us first take a look at a few definitions by which you may want to enlarge your personal vocabulary:

Proof:[1]

- Evidence that establishes the truth, or validity of something[2]

- The act of testing the truth or validity of something by experiment or trial[3]

- A way or means of showing beyond doubt the truth of something[4]
- The condition of having been tested and approved[5]

Opinion:

- A belief held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge[6]

- An appraisal or judgement formed in the mind about the truth, or probability of something[7]

So quite clearly, "opinion" is not "proof". And another point that must be considered here is the fact that in spite of everyone having an opinion, it is quite obvious that not all opinions are created equal. If I truly wanted to be informed by the opinion of another, in relation to a particular subject, it would certainly be in my best interest to seek out the thoughts of one who was an acknowledged expert in that discipline, with a lengthy history of, or participation in, that given subject of study. The very idea of accepting opinions about the Christian faith from one who has only very limited, or no experience in that area, flies in the face of that exact principle.

The only experience of yours that I have seen to date is your experience in attempting to denigrate a subject of which you apparently have very, very little first-hand knowledge, and also, your experience at allegedly attacking a lady's web-site who wasn't even addressing you, but rather, others who held a specific belief in common with her. As I mentioned previously, I myself may not be in total agreement with the stated intent of that web-site in question, but I would never attack her views, or attempt to exploit her site, in the manner described, just as I am not attacking your web-page, which I am definitely in total disagreement with. The things I have written, and shall yet write, on these pages, are merely my way of answering your charges that I, and every other Christian, is delusional, believing in a God who, even though you claim to disbelieve in Him, you have apparently no problem with calling a liar. Thus, it can't be said that I am attacking you, but rather, offering a defense of my faith.

I suspect that I could just end, right here, my rebuttal of this specific non-proof of yours, since anyone reading this, just has to take a quick glance at your page to see exactly what I mean about how it tries to substitute opinion for proof. But I stress once again, that attempting to change your opinion, regarding anything (much less your own web-page), is not my primary concern in the writing of this rebuttal. My actual interest lies more in the area of possibly offering support to any of my younger brothers and sisters in Christ, who may in any way feel threatened, or confused, by the things you have claimed on your site. I have no doubt that they would find that encouragement for themselves, given sufficient growth in their relationship to God, but if I can offer even a band-aid in the meantime, I am willing to hear the call of the Spirit to do so. And with all that said, we shall proceed tomorrow.

[1] All emphasis in these two sets of definitions are mine.

[2] "Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary", Berkley Books, New York, 1984, p.561

[3] Ibid

[4] "Gage Canadian Dictionary", Walter S. Avis et al., Gage Learning Corporation, Toronto, 1983, p.901

[5] Ibid

[6] "Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary", Berkley Books, New York, 1984, p.493

[7] "Gage Canadian Dictionary", Walter S. Avis et al., Gage Learning Corporation, Toronto, 1983, p.796

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:109-112

2012-08-29T00:04:00.000-07:00

So, at any rate, amidst high hopes that the remainder of your presentation would consist of something a little more challenging, and realistic, than your first "Proof", I re-read the introduction to your site, and came across what I see as your first small admission that even you are aware that your individual articles may not be entirely up to snuff, so to speak. It seems I missed, in that initial glance at your web-page, a small paragraph, set apart from the main body of the introduction. (I also investigated, a little more in-depth, the actual truth regarding a much larger, and coloured-for-emphasis box sitting below that isolated paragraph which we will discuss shortly). In the paragraph that I'm referring to at the moment, however, you tell people that they could start reading your pages at Proof #1, as I did, or, they might "try these five all-time favourites:". Well, there are indeed five of your "proofs" highlighted in that place, though what appears to be lacking is any explanation as to just what makes them "all-time favourites". Do you mean they are your all-time favourites? If it's your readers "favourites" you are referring to, do I just take your word for it, or is there something you can offer to substantiate that claim?

To tell you the truth, in reference to this claim that you make, I wouldn't even have thought to ask you the questions above, except, as I just mentioned, I did a little investigating on that larger information box below the one we are discussing, and what I discovered in my investigations, is the questionable honesty with which you appear to operate. Shame on you. (I was originally going to include a copy of the actual box here, but a description should suffice nicely.)

As I already said, the box itself has a coloured background which appears to be for emphasis since the non-coloured portion of the page is easy enough to read without the additional coloring. The top two lines of text inside the box, are formatted and worded as follows:

Coverage in the
New York Times

This is followed by:

GodIsImaginary.com
has been mentioned
in the New York
Times:

And at the bottom of the box, a link:

"If You Post It, They
Will Pray"

Now owing to the bold typeface of the first two lines, it is natural that this should be the first thing seen. It sounds impressive, the "New York Times" apparently covered your modest little website. It clearly says "Coverage".

The second block of words is not so impressive, however, without the bold typeface to make it stand out, but in actuality, this is the statement of truth. Contrary to what your headline reads, there was no coverage of note of your site in the "New York Times", but merely, as the second block of words points out, a simple mention. But possibly even that would be a positive thing, depending on how extensive that mention was, and what subject pertaining to your site was actually mentioned.

Following the link, however, takes us to a 2-page article in the "New York Times", from Nov./2008, dealing with web-sites that offer people the prayers of others in support of matters that they are presently concerned with. Maybe not exactly my cup of tea, but well-intentioned at least, and seeking to be of service to others. A noble endeavor! The only mention of your site is when the lady being interviewed (the true focus of the article) mentions that some "militant atheists" were attempting to exploit her site to spread their views, and rather than offer prayer to those who requested it, were referring those people, in some cases, to "GodIsImaginary.com". I will add, in all fairness, that the reporter did add a single sentence to the mention in question, but it's rather vague, and I can't even be certain exactly what the writer was saying:

"The site urges nonbelievers to spread the word by posting links to Godisimaginary on forums, blogs and news groups."

I suppose he might have been saying that non-believers could spread the word of Atheism by posting to your site, but the way I see it, that would result more in a centralization of Atheistic viewpoints (gathering them together in one place) than a spreading of those same ideas. Like I said, the sentence is quite vague, most likely the reflection of the reporter's total lack of interest in your site, though he made an effort to clarify what the lady who was his true subject was trying to say.

The point I'm actually trying to make, however, is that your claim to "Coverage in the New York Times" is about as realistic as it would be for "The New York Times" to claim coverage on my Blog, simple because I mentioned them a couple of times just now. And for you to boast of the mention that you did get is roughly the equivalent of bragging to the world that you had done some modeling in your day, and then showing them a mug-shot of yourself as proof. Hardly the type of ethics that any writer should aspire to. Again I say, shame on you.

As to what I personally feel is probably the truth concerning your "5 All-time Favourites", it's quite simple really. I suspect that their lofty classification is attained simply by the merit of what you feel are the 5 best examples of your own work. And in that, I find myself quite willing to accept your assessment, and since it would truly be a lot more interesting to tackle a decent argument, rather than simply more of the silliness that made up Proof #1, I have decided to discuss next, those 5 of your "Proofs" that you have highlighted. Depending on just what we find there, we can decide later if there is any reason to continue with the remaining articles[1].

[1] Having just scanned the first of your 5 "all-time favourites", however, I have to fear I am going to be greatly disappointed. This argument of yours, "Statistically Analyze Prayer" is far inferior to the argument we just dealt with. You have apparently stepped away from even attempting to offer any evidence, and have decided instead to seek shelter within the total inanity of you own opinion, bolstered only by selective references to any other opinions you could find, that you feel support your own.

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:105-109

2012-08-28T00:06:00.002-07:00

When I spoke yesterday of knowing the things of God that we need to know, It was not my intention to limit our relationship to our Saviour in any unscriptural way. Though I may not agree with the concept, there is apparently some (though not much) Biblical support for the idea that Jesus, despite the entire concept of the Trinity (the three-in-one Nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit) may not, for reasons which I don't claim to understand, have total knowledge of the Father's mind. Consider the following, which is an excerpt from 1 Corinthians that is part of the same speech by Paul, as that which we quoted in yesterday's instalment:

"...but God has revealed it to us by His Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."

1 Corinthians 2:10-11

At least a few people have grasped on to the fact that the Scripture states "except the Spirit of God", but does not explicitly include Jesus in that exception. They add to this the fact that Jesus cried out to the Father, while He (Jesus) hung on The Cross,

"...My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Mark 15:34b

and they claim this also shows that Jesus was not privy to every thought in the Father's mind.

Myself, I think it is one of those conversations that seem to serve no other purpose than to create division, and if there is anything to it at all, it is probably one of those "deep things" of God, better left to the searching of the Spirit, or at the very least, left to the study of men more educated than myself.

So, to carry on. It would appear that you have offered no specific comments for the four references that complete this so-called proof of yours (they are mainly redundant anyway), but rather than just end your first argument here, you add some final comments, sacrilegious insult, a nifty diagram, and an entire boxed section entitled "Understanding The Rationalities", which in and of itself, just may be one of the most irrational and convoluted pieces of writing I have ever witnessed. All of this at the bottom of the page. Yet in the first paragraph of those same closing comments you offer a rather self-centered affirmation to your readers of how nothing could be simpler or clearer than the evidence you have provided in your proof. Well if your previously-given proof as you call it is so clear, why did you feel the necessity to offer all this other fluff which is truly nothing more than a repetitious, re-working of the same faulty arguments that you made in the main body of this page.

Since I have no inclination to answer the same arguments all over again, I will just by-pass that entire section, leaving it up to any who are so motivated to do so, to read those comments on their own. They can easily find my refutations of each and every one of the points you try to hammer home at the bottom of this page, in my comments given above. As for the "evidence" that you claim is so clear, well, as we have seen, that is not any kind of evidence at all, but a bunch of misquoted Scriptures mixed in with unsubstantiated personal opinion from a writer, who, quite plainly, has no idea of what the subject he has chosen to write about, truly consists of. And that is the only thing about your whole "proof" that is clear. Of course, that's my opinion, and in all fairness, we should leave the actual judging up to those who might choose to read our pages.

An Interlude, and Explanation of Process

As I sat here considering the ponderous amount of writing yet ahead of me in my remaining rebuttal of your web-page, "God Is Imaginary", I began to despair somewhat, as I remembered that my primary perusal of your site had seemed to indicate that there were no "proofs" (as you call them) at all, that were presented in a manner which would bestow upon them any significance whatsoever. Furthermore, at that time, even I didn't realize just how redundant, and absurd, an individual's argument could be.

If we just consider your Proof #1 "Try Praying", for instance (which we have just now finished discussing), it becomes quite plain, that except for my interest in trying to edify you, at least a little bit, regarding the misconceptions you are apparently so trapped within, I could simply have made what was almost my first objection (which I later tried to expand upon somewhat, for the benefit of the readers, as well as yourself), and the matter would have been very easily, and thoroughly, taken care of. After all, as your heading would indicate, your contention is that proof was arrived at because a hypothetical grouping of people, either believers, or non-believers, offered a specific prayer, which, according to you (determined by yourself in your omniscience) did not, or would not, produce the desired, or expected result, or for that matter, any result at all.

Hopefully, you now understand that as a non-believer (one who lacks belief) you are unable to pray effectively in the first place, at least until by an act of God's Holy Spirit, you receive the power of the God-given belief/faith to do so. You yourself inadvertently pointed this very principle out again and again, by writing things in your comments such as "So if we believe...." which you clearly don't. And I even took the time to explain that a true believer could not expect one of his own prayers, if it was of such a nature, to be answered, since it could not be considered to be a prayer for "such as God has promised". Therefore, if, as an unbeliever you lack the ability of effective prayer, and if believers are confined to praying the prayers of God (of which, yours is not one), then your entire Proof #1 simply crumbles. But just in case you still don't get it, let me give you one more illustration that may (or may not) clear this matter up for you.

Suppose it was my contention to prove that a professional baseball pitcher could not possibly throw a ball with sufficient force and accuracy, to hit, in the head, and kill, another unprotected individual at a distance of 70 feet. Further, suppose that I claim I can prove this, by attempting the feat myself, or, alternately, having the people I am making this claim to, try it for themselves. In either case, I go on to tell them, either they will fail, or I will fail, and thus, my point is proven. But someone objects.

Their problem, they tell me, is that neither I, nor the others that are trying, are professional baseball players, and so we lack the special kind of ability, or training, by which to have any chance at accomplishing the given task. I, in turn, tell them to get professional baseball pitchers to attempt the feat, and they also will fail, once again proving my point. Right? WRONG!

I would have to realize the absurdity of my so-called proof for the following very simple reasons. First, the amateurs (equivalent to your non-believers), simply don't have the tools to perform the feat. So yes, they will most likely fail. (There is always the possibility of exceptions surfacing, for any number of reasons beyond our control). The professionals, on the other hand, (equivalent to your "sincere believers") certainly do possess the tools to do the job, but most likely (definitely I hope), they will lack the motivation to even try something so silly, since it is a total departure from the accepted manner in which their talents were intended to be used, not to mention, it involves harming (even killing) a fellow human being. Therefore, my so-called proof, exactly like yours, is totally ridiculous, and truly isn't worth the pixels used to display it.

At any rate, we will FINALLY conclude this rebuttal, and begin with the introduction to the next, in that which follows tomorrow. Until then...

TO BE CONTINUED............

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:99-104

2012-08-27T03:26:00.000-07:00

Point 5 is, of course, the most obvious point in which your proof fails. Your oft-times stated lack of belief in the things the Father so clearly says in the Holy Scriptures, also declares your disbelief, in His testimony regarding Jesus. As long as you refuse to acknowledge the Lord's Divinity, you cannot claim to possess faith in Him. The proof of this lies in the fact that not only do you call God a liar, as described in the point we are currently discussing (by failure to accept His testimony), but you flat out called both Jesus, and His Father, liars, in your earlier comments on the Scriptures you offered as support for your proof. Thus, by your own words, you have placed yourself outside the realm of offering genuine prayer, so there is nothing of which you can claim the Father's failure to answer.

Finally, we have Point 6, and this brings us to the matter of "obedience". I mentioned this in the earliest parts of this document, when I asked, "...for that matter, where is obedience?" At that time I was pointing out that the prayer you suggested was more like a test that would clearly, and without any doubt, prove the existence of God, should He choose to answer it. After seeing such a thing occur, there would be no need of "faith", since the matter would have been completely settled. The problem is, as I mentioned above, for whatever reasons God may have for doing so, He has declared that anyone who wishes to see Him will have to do so, by believing (having faith in) the Gospel that was brought through Christ Jesus, and handed down to us through the disciples. Just one verse prior to the last Scripture I quoted, Paul has this to say,

"I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile."

Romans 1:16

If we disobey God's command to believe in Jesus' name, than that disobedience removes our God-given right (as believers) to petition Him in the name of His son, and thus, we should not expect to receive any of the things we desire of Him. However,

"...if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from Him anything we ask, because we obey His commands and do what pleases Him. And this is His command: to believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ....Those who obey His commands live in Him, and He in them..."

1 John 3:21-24 (Emphasis mine.)

And let us not forget that believing in Jesus involves praying only for such things "as God has promised".

We can shed even more light on this entire matter by taking a closer look at the three verses that you included in your reference. Within these verses, let us take special note of the one precise usage by Jesus, in v.12, of the phrase “faith in me”, (which we have, in a general manner, already spoken of above), and His usage of the second phrase previously mentioned, that Jesus apparently deems to be of such importance, that He uses it not just once, but twice, in v.14, “in my name”. What exactly do these phrases mean within the context that they are found here, and how do their meanings affect the promises that are made. Let us begin with the latter.

Unlike what so many believers and unbelievers appear to think, to pray "in Jesus’ name" does not involve merely invoking that Name in some manner similar to a magical incantation, which might be offered by the more superstitious among us, in order to acquire luck, or some such thing. Spirituality is not magic. So, in an effort to be as clear, and concise as possible, I will call upon one of those authorities I mentioned earlier whose written works comprise at least a part of my reading list. The following quotation comes from the comments which are to be found in “The Anchor Bible”, and I certainly could not explain it any better than they have already done.

“A Christian prays in Jesus’ name in the sense that he is in union with Jesus…because the Christian is in union with Jesus and Jesus is in union with the Father, there can be no doubt that the Christian’s requests will be granted. This context of union with Jesus also suggests that the requests of the Christian are now no longer thought of as requests concerning the petty things of life (in opposition to the amazing things of God) – they are requests of such a nature that when they are granted the Father is glorified in the son (see verse 13 in the reference we are presently considering). They are requests pertinent to the Christian life and to the continuation of the work by which Jesus glorified the Father during His ministry.[1]” (Emphasis and parenthetical statements mine.)

The last point mentioned in the above-given excerpt is of special importance to an understanding of what Jesus meant when He said in the Scriptures you referred to,

"...anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these..." --John 14:12 (Emphasis mine.)

What Jesus had in fact been doing was His Father's work, and spreading the Good News. Jesus was telling His disciples that they also would be doing the Father's work, and theirs would be an even greater work, since they would take the message of the gospel, outside of Palestine where Jesus had walked, and into the whole world. When taken in the context of the passage, these are the greater works the Lord is speaking of. The disciples (at least some of them) did also perform miracles that were recorded in the Bible, but the performing of miracles can never be compared to the importance of spreading the Holy Word. Miracles are seldom, if ever, the means to salvation, unless we are speaking of the miraculous instilling into our hearts, of belief and saving grace, through the agency of the Holy Spirit.

So you see, the reason I said you have not taken the words of the Lord literally enough is based on the fact that lacking that presence of the Holy Spirit in your life, you can truly have no concept of what Jesus was speaking about when He used the phrase “in my name”, and as a result, you are using it far too lightly, in far too broad a sense. You were correct, however, when you labelled the Lord’s statement as “unambiguous”, since any ambiguity contained within the statement is actually manifested by your lack of knowledge pertaining to the things of the Spirit.

Regarding "faith" we have already said much in our replies to your earlier comments. So at this point, I only wish to look specifically at the phrase "faith in me" and what it actually entails when used in the manner Jesus used it in verse 12 of your reference. First of all, as we have already mentioned, the phrase is used to qualify the pronoun "anyone", reducing the general meaning to a far more specific one. Not just "anyone", but "anyone who has faith in me". For a person to truly benefit from this qualifying statement, they have to first have some idea as to what it means.

If I were to tell you that, "soil is quite odourless in the absence of the actinomycetes", you might not be able to do much with that, until you first understood that actinomycetes are a form of bacteria that actually contribute to producing in soil it's healthy earth-like aroma. (When you see a farmer sniffing his soil, it is quite likely this particular smell that he is looking for; and if it is absent, his soil is pretty much dead, and should be more properly called "dust", hence the term "the great dust-bowl" referring to large patches of bad land). And just as the implications of "the absence of actinomycetes" need, in this example, to be understood for true enlightenment in the area of "Soil Sciences", so with the implications of the phrase "believe in me", when used by Jesus in the Scriptures.

As a Christian, I understand that to believe in Jesus, my life has to be one with His. That is not to say, or imply in any manner, that I am in any way Divine. It does, however, mean that my desires must be His desires, and within the confines of my present humanity, my thoughts must be His thoughts. Paul states this quite clearly, when he says,

"...So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin."

Romans 7:25b (Emphasis mine.)

or yet again,

"'For who has known the mind of the Lord

that he may instruct Him?'

But we (Christians) have the mind of Christ."

1 Corinthians 2:16 (Emphasis and parenthetical statement mine.)

Clearly, if we believe what Jesus said about His being one with God, and if we also believe what Jesus told us about our being one with Him, then we know within ourselves the things that our Lord knows, and He knows the things of God that we need to know. And it is this kind of intimacy with God that Jesus promises, if we truly believe in Him.

And I think I should clarify one of the points I just made, before we move on. And that is where we will start tomorrow.

[1] “The Anchor Bible, The Gospel According To John, vol. 29a,”, Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1970, p.636

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:95-99

2012-08-26T00:10:00.001-07:00

Now it is also at this point in the given reference that we should attempt to clarify somewhat, a very important concept that we have, as of yet, not really dealt with in any real depth. What does it actually mean to "have faith in" Jesus? It will require an answer to this question before the entire reference can be understood. Once our conclusion to the above consideration is arrived at, however, I think we will see that in regard to your question as to whether we are taking the Saviour’s words “too literally”, the actual case truly is, as I stated earlier, that you are not taking His words literally enough.

To begin with, I offer below some excerpts regarding the definition of "faith" from an entry in "Fausset's Bible Cyclopaedia".[1] What is faith:

1. the substance of things hoped for

2. the evidence of things not seen

3. Faith accepts the truths revealed on the testimony of God...that testimony being to us given in Holy Scripture.

4. Where sight is, there faith ceases.

5. In its barest primary form, faith is simply crediting or accepting God's testimony ...Not to credit it is to make God a "liar"!...The necessary consequence of crediting God's testimony...is believing in the Son of God; for He, and salvation in Him alone, form the grand subject of God's testimony.

6. Faith is also an obedience to God's command to believe (1 John 3:23).

Perhaps points 2 and 4 in the above list would be the easiest of the lot to consider, with an eye towards explanation, but let us take at least a brief look at each of the points in turn, while adding a little more depth to those easier-to understand items as we come to them.

When we speak of "the substance of things hoped for", point 1, we must first determine, what those things that we are hoping for consist of. The primary substance of the Christian concern, is the hope for salvation from the curse of sin. Our assurance of receiving that which we desire (hope for) is the result of the faith we have in God's Word, that He provided a Plan of Salvation, and that that Plan was accomplished through the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of His Blessed Son. This particular type of "faith" is probably best described as: "Belief in God, religion, or spiritual things[2]". This is one of the main ways a Christian uses this word.

In point 2, we have a definition of faith that is experienced just as frequently by professed non-believers, as by believers. This same definition, "the evidence of things not seen", really takes the force out of any statement made by an individual who claims they have no faith, in anything. There are countless examples I could use to illustrate this point, but any single one of the few which follow should suffice.

For instance, when you get up in the morning and head off to work, I don't imagine you take a couple of hundred pounds of lead weights with you in an attempt to avoid flying off the surface of the earth into outer space, or an oxygen bottle to prevent asphyxiation. Your faith in gravity and atmospheric oxygen, both things that can't be seen, allow you to avoid all that trouble. If I asked you why you bought your spouse flowers and you said it was because of love, I wouldn't ask you to show it to me. My faith in the concept of love would make me believe you. As you probably want to point out, there are ways of testing for gravity, as well as for oxygen, but if you really think there are definite ways of testing for actual love, I would simply point out that not even a spouse could accomplish that, as testified to by the number of people murdered each year by their partners, and even their own blood relatives.

Point 3 is very similar to what we already discussed when talking about Point 1. It is my faith in God's Word (His testimony) that is behind my belief in His Son, and my faith in Jesus' teachings that are behind my belief in the accuracy of Scripture. Until a person believes in God, they will never have true belief in His Son, and thus the promises contained in the Word do not pertain to them. In addition to not claiming those promises, they should also not assume that just because those promises don't relate to them in their current state of unbelief, that they are somehow false promises that don't relate to anyone, at any time, including themselves should a time arrive, when, by an action of their own free will, and the assistance of the Holy Spirit, they choose to return unto their creator in faith and genuine belief.

Now point 4 is perhaps, in direct connection to our present discussion, the true crux of the matter, and the point that relates most clearly to the stance you have taken. In your request of the Lord in the prayer you have stipulated, you can look at it in any manner that you so choose, but in the end, one specific truth stands out from the rest; you are asking God to provide proof of His existence. Since we already discussed the inappropriateness of this when we discussed the matter of Gideon, I won't rehash the entire thing again, but will simply quote the following Scripture as support for what I said in that place.

"For in the Gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith.""

Romans 1:17

Since, as points 2 and 4 make clear, faith doesn't exist where there is sight (proof), and since you can have no relationship to God without faith (as stated in the above-given Scripture), your suggested prayer becomes a self-defeating prophecy, and has no validity. The concept of God curing a specific case of cancer, in a specific situation, still leaves enough question about his involvement in the matter, that it would only serve to increase an individual's faith, whereas the curing of every case of cancer in the world in one night, in direct answer to a prayer, would prove beyond any question, God's existence, resulting in the loss of faith, and along with that, the loss of any chance at salvation.

It should also be understood that faith is not the only way for God to act, but it is the method that He has chosen to employ, and unlike you, I refuse to anthropomorphize The Lord of Creation by demanding that He act in what I see as the "accepted human manner". Also, unlike you, I am not arrogant enough to think I can dictate to a Being of His Nature, nor am I self-centered enough to think I can understand His reasons for acting in whatever manner He so chooses. And we will pick up our discussion, regarding the remaining points, and the rest of your "proof", tomorrow. Until then....

TO BE CONTINUED......

[1] "Bible Cyclopaedia", A.R.Fausset, M.A., The S.S.Scranton Company, Hartford, Conn., 1913, p.226

[2] "Gage Canadian Dictionary", Walter S. Avis et al., Gage Learning Corporation, Toronto, 1983, p.426 def.2

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:89-94

2012-08-25T00:13:00.000-07:00

John 14:12-14

"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."

Your comments read as follows:

“Look at how direct this statement is: "You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." This is the "Son of God" speaking. Have we taken him "too literally?" No. This is a simple, unambiguous statement. Have we taken his statement "out of context?" No - Jesus uses the word anyone. Yet Jesus' statement is obviously false. Because when we ask God to cure cancer tonight, nothing happens.”

Before anything else is said, it must be noted that regarding the two questions you pose in your comments, only the first of your given answers is correct, but even though that answer is correct, it is not accurate in the way you apparently think it is. The given response, “No”, is correct not because you have taken the words of our Lord “too literally”, but because you fail to take them “literally enough”. We shall see why in that which follows. As for the second question to which your reply is once again, “No”, I suggest you most certainly have taken the words out of their context, and furthermore, I seriously doubt that you could explain the context to me even if I were to ask you. Thus, your obvious difficulty at staying “in” context.

The initial statement in your reply, however, is right on the money. The words Jesus speaks in these verses truly are “direct”. Rather than isolate a single sentence in your reference from the rest, however, as you have done, or for that matter, rather than separating your reference from the beginning of the conversation that began in John 14:1, we must take the Scripture as a whole, and in order to accomplish that, we really do need to begin, at the very least, with the question that Thomas asked in verse 5, which brought forth the Lord's ensuing reply.

Thomas was commenting on what Jesus had just told His disciples, regarding the fact that they should not be sad that He was about to leave them, since He was going so that He could prepare a place for them, and He would surely return, so that He could take them to that place (John 14:1-3). He then told them that they already knew the way to that place (a reference to having faith, and trust in Jesus and the Father, which is the path we all must use, and a path that we all should know).

"Thomas said to him, 'Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know Him and have seen Him.'"

John 14:5-7 (Emphasis mine.)

Now there is a great deal that we could discuss regarding the Scriptures just given, but since we are actually dealing with a verse that appears later in this particular accounting, we should just use this one, as is necessary, to clarify that later verse. For now, let us just continue.

After hearing Jesus' answer to Thomas' question, a second disciple added his voice to the conversation,

"Philip said, 'Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.'

John 14:8

It seems to me that what Philip was asking for was "proof", very much so as you are doing today. Even though it was common among believers during that period, as well as in our own, to believe that seeing the Glory of The Lord with human eyes would result in the death of the unfortunate one who should experience it (another topic for another time), still, there had been limited exceptions (something Philip would almost certainly have known). Moses, and several other prophets experienced "visions of God" (Theophanies), though they were watered down in various ways, as did Gideon, who we spoke of earlier. In each of those cases, those who experienced the events, survived, perhaps due to the watered-down nature of the vision, or even more likely, due to the Lord's Mercy and Graciousness.

It should be noted here, that Philip was apparently a good disciple, one of the first several to be called by Jesus, and in every mention of him, it seems we hear only good things. He was actively involved in the Lord's miracle of the loaves (John 6:5-13), it was he to whom the Greeks attending the Feast brought their request to meet Jesus (John 12:20-22), and even when Philip was originally commanded by Jesus to "Follow me" (John 1:43b), he wasted no time in proving his unselfishness by quickly finding his friend Nathanael, testifying to him about Jesus being the one Moses had written about, and then inviting Nathanael to come and see for himself (John 1:45).

It is for the reasons given above that I don't believe Philip's request to Jesus to "show us the Father", spoke of any special dullness, or naïveté, or lack of faith on the disciple's part that was not common among many of the disciples, at that exact time in their walk with Jesus. Rather, I think Philip truly felt a deep desire to see the Father, and hadn't yet fully grasped, that, in Jesus, whom he had been travelling with for approximately three years, he had already seen the true essence of the Father in heaven. This is what Jesus was about to tell him yet again, but just before we look at that, there is another possibility for Philip's request that I have just recently in my readings seen suggested, and I would like to offer an excerpt from my study material to explain its premise.

"B. Weiss suggests that some whisper of the Transfiguration-glory (see Luke 9:28-36) had escaped from the favoured three (the disciples chosen to accompany Jesus up the Mount of Transfiguration, who were then instructed by Jesus not to tell anyone, at that time, about what they had been so blessed to witness) leading the other disciples to desire a corresponding theophany.[1]" I certainly think that that might be a distinct possibility.

At any rate, whatever the actual reason was for Philip's question, Jesus answered,

"'...Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing His work. Believe me when I say I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

John 14:9-11 (Emphasis mine.)

There seems to be a certain amount of sadness at Philip's apparent lack of spiritual progress in the Lord's first question, and His ensuing comment of explanation. In His second and third questions, however, I get much more of a sense of how He seems to be guiding Philip into self-reflection, bringing the disciple to a questioning of what it is that he truly believes. When He then implores Philip to "Believe me" it is because that is not just the best of the roads to salvation that Philip could take, it is the only successful road to be certain. When He continues by saying, "at least believe on the evidence of the miracles, it is because without belief in Jesus, Philip would have to return to the beginning of his spiritual path, which is quite often, believing, but for the wrong reasons; a state in which many, if not all, believers, began their journey of faith. Though a belief of that nature is an excellent place to begin, it is not a "saving" belief, which only comes through belief in Jesus. And this conversation continues right on into the Scriptures that you have referenced.

In verse 12, Jesus clearly states “…anyone who has faith in me…”, so we can plainly see that the promises herein contained are only pertinent to unbelievers should they ever accept the call of the Spirit to return in faith unto the Lord, at which time, they would not be unbelievers anymore. The clause "...who has faith in me..." is that which qualifies the pronoun "...anyone..." By the very clarity of the qualification, the word "anyone" refers only to those who have “faith in Jesus”. If you don’t believe in God, it stands to reason that you don’t believe in His Son, so I’m very interested in knowing how you can claim to have faith in a figure which you don’t believe exists. We shall try and supply you with the tools needed to grasp the principle I am attempting to make, when we pick this up tomorrow.

Just before we leave, however, it should also be noted that exactly as the phrase "who has faith in me" limits the scope of the word, "anyone", so does the phrase, "in my name" limit, and restrict, the meaning of the second word you latched onto, the word "anything", as found in verse 14 of your reference. Neither of the two words in question can be taken as you have tried to take them, since you, in both cases, neglected to include the qualifying phrases. So you see, despite your continual objections to Christians who claim that you have taken things "out of context", the simple fact of the matter is, you have, and as long as you continue to do so, you should expect to hear that statement continually repeated. After all, it's not paranoid behaviour on the part of Christians who accuse you of this practice, if in fact, it's really happening, as it clearly is. But for now...

TO BE CONTINUED……

[1] "The Pulpit Commentary, The Gospel of John", H.D.M. Spence, M.A, D.D., Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950, p.223 (Parenthetical statements are mine.)

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:84-89

2012-08-24T00:16:00.001-07:00

Now let us look at what the phrase "belief in Jesus" generally involves when used in the Scriptures, or in the speech of a Christian. By way of illustration, we can take a look at what it means when one person asks another, "Do you believe in 'free speech'?" The first person is obviously not asking if the second person believes that there is something called 'free speech' that exists within the world, whether its actual definition is clear or not. That fact is a taken, to deny it would be to fly in the face of reality. What the question actually seeks to find out is if the second person believes in the principles behind the idea of "Free Speech". Does the person believe that all people, everywhere, should have the right to voice their opinion, without fear of undue retribution? If you think that this is a no-brainer, and that this idea does live everywhere already, I refer you to the recently-sentenced members of "Pussy Riot" that we have been hearing of lately, in Russia. Two years in a Russian prison for their attempt to challenge Putin's ties to the State Church would seem to suggest that Free Speech is not believed in by the Russian government , nor the Orthodox Church of Russia, who were actually demanding a much stronger sentence. Again, that doesn't mean that they disbelieve reports of such a thing as "free will" existing, they just don't believe in the principle of the thing. The very same idea holds true regarding "belief in Jesus".

To believe in our Lord, in a Biblical sense, one has to believe in the principles that He stood for, and also what God has testified to, regarding Jesus. They have to believe that He was NOT a liar, and that He was exactly who He claimed to be, the long-awaited Christ, the Son of God. They have to believe also, that just as God's Holy Word testifies to, Jesus was born of a virgin, lived as a man, died on the cross at Calvary, and was raised again from the dead, by God, on the third day following His crucifixion, and death. We must also believe in all the teachings He imparted onto us through His disciples, and do our best to obey them, proving our solidarity with the ideas behind each and every one of those teachings (no believer succeeds in doing this anywhere near perfectly, but we continue to try, and have faith that our Father will honour the effort). Consider Jesus' call to the people at the beginning of His ministry:

" 'The time has come,' He said. 'The Kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!' "

Mark 1:15 (Emphasis mine.)

It is of special interest that the above quotation is the very first occurrence of Jesus' words in the Book of Mark, thus, quite possibly, the first message to the people that He chose to deliver. And we have to note also that Jesus did not just say "believe" and leave it at that, but rather, He took the time to tell us just what it is that we need to believe; we need to believe the "good news", another way of saying "the gospel". This same thought is echoed by Paul in Acts 15 when he says,

"...Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the Gospel and believe."

Acts 15:7

A little further in Book of The Acts, we have the recounting of the story involving the jailor in charge of Paul and Silas, who asked them what exactly he must do to be saved,

"They replied, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved -- you and your household.' Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in His house."

Acts 16:31-32 (Emphasis mine.)

Notice that Paul takes the time to report that they spoke the Word of the Lord to everyone in the house. He apparently thought that this was important enough to make mention of. That is because Salvation comes through belief in the Lord, and spiritual growth comes through the nourishment of the Holy Word.

Nowadays, Paul has long-since gone home to His Maker. Thus, we may not have the benefit of his personally teaching us, but we do have his thoughts, preserved within the Bible, and so we read, or listen to a pastor as he attempts in the power of the Spirit, to illuminate these words for those of us in his congregation. This idea of believing is so important as to be worthy of yet one more clarifying verse:

"...that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."

Romans 10:8b-10 (Emphasis mine.)

I have to point out that it appears you are trying to "believe with your mouth", and "confess with your biased imagination". This simply will not work. And there are so many other Scriptures that speak of the true essence of belief, that entire volumes could, and have, been written on this topic, by countless men smarter than me. I humbly refer you to those works for clarification, or further consideration of this subject.

At any rate, the point of all this, is that "belief", like "sincerity" (of which we spoke earlier) is not something you can just turn on or off. In fact, the "belief that receives from God", which is quite apparently the belief you are most interested in, is not even the result of anything we might do; we can never obtain it by ourselves. It is a gift from God, yet again, to believers, or those truly and sincerely seeking after God, who by His Grace, and His willingness to reward those who sincerely search for Him, are about to become believers. Without this crucial type of belief, or faith, our quest for reconciliation with God can only be fruitless. But you can be certain that God will impart this gift unto you, implanting it in your heart, as soon as you truly seek after His Will for your life.

So the conclusion of this particular matter is really quite straightforward. As you yourself have recognized, and reflected in your own comments, the whole matter of receiving from God, that which we request of Him, hinges on the prerequisite of "believing". As you yourself stated "If we believe....". Since it's very unlikely that such a staunch non-believer as yourself should actually hold within their heart a "true" belief in God (or he/she wouldn't be making the claims you have been making), then your premise fails due to your own admitted lack of belief. And if you say that I'm in error because you were only offering a hypothetical situation, then it must also be noted that the impossibility of the conditions which you have outlined, send your hypothetical situation into the realm of pure fantasy, and I can reply that in that fantasy world of yours, your prayer was in fact answered, and all forms of cancer were indeed eliminated from the earth as a direct result of your prayer. That's why it's a fantasy world, it can work in any way that you or I choose. However, if we remain in the real world, then there are prerequisites to effective prayer, and you, as a confirmed unbeliever, are unable to meet any of them. Once again, God did not fail to answer a prayer, but in truth, no real prayer was ever offered in the circumstances you describe. So let us continue.

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:80-84

2012-08-23T00:38:00.000-07:00

Mark 11:24

“Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.”

Your comment reads:

“If God says, "believe that you have received it, and it will be yours," and if we believe in God and his power, then what should happen if we pray to cure cancer tonight? It should be cured. Either that, or God is lying.”

Once again, you err in your comment, and resort to another failed attempt at the use of the technique known as "Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity")" .In addition, as opposed to your usual error of incorrectly labelling the reference itself, you have this time simply chosen to omit the first part of the very same Scripture that you yourself offered as evidence, which actually reads, “Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer,…”. This again, as we have already discussed above, excludes non-believers, since the Lord only hears the prayers of those, who first, believe in Him. You yourself state in your comment “if we believe in God and His power”, which you clearly don’t, since I'm almost certain (by your usage of it) that you don't even understand what that particular phrase means. We shall try to enhance your understanding, in just a moment, but first we must note that in addition to your apparent lack of understanding, you have also once again taken the statement completely out of context, by not including in your reference the previous 4 verses, which both set the stage, so to speak, for the verse which you did in fact use (verse 24), and also make clarity of that particular verse possible.

In verses 20-21, we have Jesus and His disciples travelling along the way, after departing from Jerusalem. Jesus had just cleansed the temple of all those who were engaged in commerce within its confines. As they walked along the next morning, Peter took notice of a fig tree that Jesus had cursed the day before as they were entering the city, and saw that the fig tree was already withered all the way down to the roots. Now the story of the fig tree is, in and of itself, very important, containing crucial lessons that we may yet have to look at in a more appropriate place. We do not need to pursue this train of thought right at this moment, however, since what Jesus chose to respond to was not so much the matter of the fig tree, but Peter's astonishment at the effectiveness of Jesus' curse, witnessed by the speed of the fig tree's demise.

First of all, Jesus exhorts Peter to "Have faith in God," (v.22), and as I've already stated, we will look at this matter of faith, and how it is defined, in much more detail in our reply to your reference that follows this one. For now, however, I am more interested in discussing a concept that is referenced not only in verse 23, but yet again, in the actual verse you offered as proof, verse 24. This, of course, is the concept of "believing", and it is one of the foremost pillars of the Christian faith[1]. But what exactly does it mean? How is it to be understood in its various manifestations within the Holy Word?

To begin with, let us make sure that we have an understanding of what "believe" does not mean, at least not in the occurrences in question . For instance, it does not mean "to simply accept the existence of" a particular person, or place, or whatever. Perhaps, I should say instead, that it does mean this, but not in the commonly-understood manner that people use it every day. If I were to ask you if you believed there was a mountain on earth referred to as Mount Everest, and you answered "yes", it could then be said, quite reasonably, that you "believe" in Mount Everest. And this is exactly what many people mean when they say they "believe in Jesus". In both Christian, and Academic circles, that would be referred to as "believing in the historical Jesus", and it actually is a common and well-accepted belief; the belief that a man named Jesus of Nazareth, existed in the ancient Middle East. Many believe that this "historical" Jesus was a great man, a teacher of very high repute, and an advocate of peace. Others still, believe that this same Jesus was somewhat of a radical, who fell afoul of, and was later executed by, the Roman State. Unfortunately, for many people, that is where their belief ends.

Whatever your personal belief in the details, however, as long as you accept that Jesus existed, then yes, you can honestly state that you "believe in Jesus". Regrettably, on an eternal scale, the possession of that specific piece of information, will mean absolutely nothing, since it is, at best, merely trivia, and is possessed of no power by which you may be saved from the wrath that is yet to come. If this type of belief about Jesus is all you have when you die, then you have nothing, and an eternity in paradise will have slipped through your fingers. And I would like you to consider one other aspect of this. If you, like so many other people, think it won't be so bad because you'll be dead and gone, you are wrong. The soul is eternal, and if you fail in obtaining paradise, you will have an eternity to continually regret throwing it all away for the fleeting pleasures of a world that appeared and ended in the relative blink of an eye.

There is a somewhat interesting aspect of this everyday form of believing in Jesus, that I would like to consider for a moment; the fact that the accepted views of non-believers, who agree with the worldly opinion of who Jesus is/was, appear quite often, to be totally contradictory. As a Christian, I have had to sit through numerous occasions, listening to casual dialogue about my Lord and Saviour, debated by worldly people (as opposed to Christians). Two of the most commonly repeated points in these conversations are that "Jesus was a highly intelligent man", and "Jesus seemed to stand on a higher moral plane than most of those around him". If these people spouting these ideas truly believe that Jesus was just a man, and if that belief were true, then both of the comments I just mentioned above would be patently false. Just consider please, that which follows:

"...Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?''I am,' said Jesus. 'And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.'"

Mark 14:61b-62a

This is only one of the many occasions that Jesus claimed to be God. See Matthew 16:13-17; Luke 22:70; John 5:24-27, (and far too many others to ever enumerate them here). Also consider, at least two of the above references to His Divinity were made by Jesus at His trial, statements that He knew full well would result in His being sentenced to death. The point here should be quite clear. If Jesus was in fact NOT God, then He was lying, and would not deserve the respect of being placed on a higher moral plane than those others around Him. Lying is never a sign of high morality. Plus, if He knew He wasn't the Son of God, then He also knew that He would not be resurrected, and His claims of Divinity before the authorities of the time, would amount to little more than what might have been the first example of "suicide by cop" that was ever heard of.

No, it just can't be had both ways; either Jesus was exactly who He claimed to be, The Son Of God, or He was a raving lunatic, and an habitual liar of a man, something, that I believe, no one who has studied His life would ever accept as a reasonable conjecture. And this is where we will have to pick it up tomorrow.

TO BE CONTINUED........

[1] I just want to say that the principle of belief is probably of major importance in religions outside of Christianity as well, but being myself a Christian, I feel it would be presumptuous of be to discuss such matters here.

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:77-80

2012-08-22T00:07:00.000-07:00

This, then, is what Jesus was telling us in the Scriptures that you so carelessly, unless it was by design, misrepresented in the reference that we discussed in my previous Blog instalment (50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:71-76). Far from lying, He was telling His disciples that as of that time, they did not yet have faith, “as little as a mustard seed”. He was furthermore, assuring them that when they did acquire the necessary faith, which we know was to occur when they received the Holy Spirit, then they would become one with the Father, in Christ, and at that time “nothing would be impossible for them”. In the chapter-long prayer to His Father that we spoke of earlier when discussing John 17, Jesus is recorded as saying:

“…Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they (believers) also be in us…”

John 17:21 (Parenthetical statement mine for clarification.)

You will probably have noticed that I completely left out any comment regarding the mid-section of your complaint, which seems to be the reason for your labeling of Jesus as “a liar”. That is mainly because that portion of your comment makes no sense at all. You refer to taking the Scripture “less-than-literally” and then completely revise it to say something that is very close to being the exact opposite of what Jesus actually said. Jesus did not say, “lots of things will be impossible for you”, nor did He say “everything will be impossible for you”, so what exactly is your point? What Jesus did say was that given sufficient faith, “nothing will be impossible for you” and I am certain that both, He said, and the original Greek writers wrote, exactly what it was that He meant to say. Especially since the same statement of our Lord’s is recorded in more than one place in the Holy Word. So again, in regards to your comment about "taking things less-than-literally", I can only ask, “What’s your point?”

Matthew 21:21

“I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.” (sic)

Once again, it must first be noted that your reference is wrong to begin with. The words you have quoted are comprised of Matthew 21:21-22. Your comment reads,

“If "you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer"", then if we ask to cure cancer tonight, cancer should dissappear (sic). Right? Yet nothing happens. Note again that there is not a non-literal way to interpret "you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer", unless you replace "whatever" with "nothing" or "little."”

Since you have chosen to begin your argument at Matthew 21:22, which as pointed out earlier, is not even the verse which you claim to be referring to, it is there that I also will begin. The first three words that appear in this verse answer your entire question. Jesus says, with absolute clarity, “If you believe…”. This, by the word's very definition, immediately excludes all non-believers, and we’ve already discussed the fact that believers, if desiring that their prayer be heard in the first place, will be praying “according to the will of God”. We can thus take Jesus at His word, and expect to receive “whatever we ask for in prayer”, as long as what we ask for meets the basic requirements for, and in fact, truly is, praying in the first place. We have also already discussed the fact that God has nowhere in His Holy Word promised us the total disappearance of cancer, or other forms of human suffering, overnight.

As for your “non-literal” interpretation of our Lord’s words, you merely highlight the fact that it would be at the very least ill-advised for anyone to approach you for a “non-literal” interpretation of anything. Perhaps you should first consider the fact that the opposite of a “literal” translation of the Bible (or anything else) is not often, if ever, called a “non-literal” translation, but is more appropriately referred to as a “free”translation. Let me offer here an example in regards to the words which you have tried to interpret “non-literally”:

“…All that ever you ask in prayer you shall have, if you believe.”

Matthew 21:22 (The Moffatt Translation)

You will note that the basic attempt here is to “clarify” the meaning, not to change it. To continually offer words that change the basic nature of what was actually said is simply a practice in deception. The point remains, the Lord said what the Lord meant to say, and there is no valid reason (except for deception) to change the thought that is contained within the words. If I in turn, were to follow the example you have set, and told everyone that I was going to interpret your words “non-literally” (using the technique you are constantly using), the result would be that you would appear to be arguing my side of the argument. If you, then, desire that I take your statements at face value, why is it that you have such difficulty in extending the Lord the same courtesy?

I could go back now to verse 21, and we could discuss the implications of Jesus' statement about faith, but since that really isn't the verse you were apparently referring to in the first place, and since the same matter occurs in your next two references, I will abstain from answering you now, and we can discuss it further when we arrive to consider John 14:12-14. For now let us continue on in the order with which you presented your argument.

TO BE CONTINUED....

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:70-76

2012-08-21T00:17:00.000-07:00

Matthew 17:20

“For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.” (sic)

I find it necessary to repeat here your entire comment regarding this scripture, so that anyone reading this will not mistakenly think I have altered your argument in any way. Your comment reads:

“If ‘nothing will be impossible to you’, then if we ask to cure cancer tonight, cancer should disappear. Right? Yet nothing happens. Note that if we take the Bible less-than-literally here, the statement ‘nothing will be impossible to you’ becomes ‘lots of things will be impossible to you,’ and that would mean that Jesus is lying.”

I hardly know where to begin. Just for starters, you have left out the first sentence of the verse in question without making any mention, or giving any indication that you have done so (a simple ellipsis, “…”, prior to the word you began with would have sufficed). The sense of the entire statement is changed by your omission of this sentence, and in actuality, for the sake of clarity, you should also have included the verse prior to this one, Matthew 17:19, and it would be better still if you had included everything back to Matthew 17:14. I would really like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I have to, at the very least, point out that this certainly has the appearance of deliberately trying to deceive your readers. Not to mention that you follow this apparent deception up by calling Jesus a “liar”, when in fact, it is your argument that is quite obviously designed to deceive. So let us now take a look at the context surrounding the Lord’s comment which you have chosen to question.

The first eight verses of Matthew 17 deal with the event that we have come to refer to as “The Transfiguration”. Immediately following this occasion, Jesus and the three disciples who had accompanied Him up the mountain, return to the crowd that they had earlier separated themselves from. Jesus is asked by a man to heal the man’s son, who suffers from violent “seizures”. The boy’s father also mentions that the disciples who had not gone with Jesus and the others up the mountain, had, in Jesus’ absence, tried to heal the boy themselves, but failed to do so. Verse 18 relates Jesus’ success in healing the boy, and then we come to the verse immediately prior to your reference, verse 19 (and I will also include with it your actual reference, verse 20, but with the initial sentence re-inserted):

“Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, ‘Why couldn’t we drive it (the demon that was causing the seizures) out?’

“He (Jesus) replied, ‘because you have so little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.” (Emphasis and parenthetical statements mine for clarification.)

So clearly, Jesus was not telling them that they could perform such a feat at that time; He was, rather, explaining why they couldn’t. Because they still didn’t have faith the size of a mustard seed. And here, it must be noted that Jesus clearly had real purpose in His choice of comparison. This was not the only time that our Lord used the tiny little mustard seed as the chosen vehicle for relaying to His followers a very important lesson, or principle. Again, I’ll ask you to consider that which follows.

“He (Jesus) told them (in this case, the crowd that followed Him) another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches’.

Matthew 13:31-32 (Parenthetical statements mine. cf., Mk 4:30-32)

In the same manner that Jesus used to illustrate the potential for growth, concerning “the kingdom of God”, in the parable that we have just read, so was He illustrating the potential for growth, concerning “faith”, when He answered the question put to Him by His disciples in our earlier reference from Matthew 17. The disciples, however, would not receive this type of faith unto themselves, a faith of such magnitude that it could be used to move mountains, until the events surrounding Pentecost, at which time they would receive from God the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the God-sanctioned ability, or privilege, to tap into the Spirit’s power at any time that they were both “in God’s will”, and acting “according” to that will. I personally cannot conceive of any reason why God would want to do such a thing as move a mountain from one place to another, but I do believe deeply, that from the moment of the disciples receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, should a situation ever arise where it would for some unknown purpose seem reasonable, or necessary, to God, that such a thing be done, then any believer could be used by God to tap into the power of the Spirit, and mountains might indeed be moved. As I’ve already said, however, I can think of no earthly reason why God would want to do such a thing.

In yet another reference from the New Testament (remember that Scripture must be proved by Scripture), the same story of the boy afflicted by seizures is told again, this time by Mark. In his recollection of the event, Mark recalls Jesus telling the disciples, in answer to their question regarding their failure at casting out the demon responsible for the boy’s affliction, that:

“…”This kind can come out only by prayer.”

Mark 9:29

There are at least three distinct, and important things that we can learn here from the words of our Saviour. First, the words “this kind” inform us that there are more than just a single type of demon by which this fallen world is plagued, apparently demons of varying strengths, and second, there are different degrees of skill (or faith?) required to achieve different purposes. Though the disciples did not yet have faith “as little as a mustard seed”, there are indeed earlier accounts of the twelve casting out some demons, and performing other miraculous works as well. Before Jesus first sent His disciples out on their own for a time, we are told:

“He called His twelve disciples to Him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits, and to heal every disease and sickness.”

Matthew 10:1

We are also told in Mark 6:12-13:

“They went out and preached that people should repent. They drove out many demons (by the authority Jesus had given them as noted in Matthew 10:1; see above) and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them.”

Yet as we have seen, they failed in their attempt to drive out the demon of concern in the story of the boy suffering from seizures. That is because their faith was still so small that only certain demons could be cast out by them; a “casting out” that was apparently effected by the use of the authority which Jesus had given them. And that is why Jesus replied to their question in Matthew 17 by stating that the reason for their failure was because they only had “such little faith”.

Thirdly, it should be noted here, that in this account given in Mark, what Mark remembered Jesus as saying in regard to the disciples question, was that “this kind can only come out with prayer”. This in itself, is of utmost importance to our entire discussion about “how” one should pray. By Jesus’ statement regarding the necessity for prayer in casting out a particular type of demon, we realize that whatever method the disciples were using to perform their wondrous works, the authority for doing so which they had received from Jesus, they weren’t yet using “effective” prayer as a means to accomplishing their ends. Otherwise, they would have succeeded in casting out the demon in question, and there would also have been no reason for Mark to explain in chapter 6, verse 13, that the healings they performed, were done through the agency of anointing the sick with oil, once again, apparently not by the use of prayer. And this brings us back full circle to your comments on Matthew 17:20, where you ask:

“If "nothing will be impossible to you", then if we ask to cure cancer tonight, cancer should disappear. Right?”

We have already shown that Jesus was not telling His disciples what they “could” do, but was illustrating for them, what they “could not do”, and explaining to them “why” they could not do it at that time, because that type of demon could only be driven out by prayer. The reason is very clear if you have read the Bible with more diligence than it takes to extract random passages, and then sew them into a tapestry of you own design.

When we earlier referred to the works of John Bunyan, we illustrated quite clearly that a true prayer must reach God, “through” Christ Jesus. Since at the time in question, the disciples who failed to cast out the demon were not in the presence of God’s Son, who was up on the mountain experiencing His Transfiguration, there was no channel through which a prayer might be presented to the Father. As Jesus Himself said in Mark’s gospel, that particular type of demon could only be cast out by prayer, so there was no way the disciples could have succeeded. In whatever manner they cast out the earlier demons, since they were not in the presence of the Lord at those times either, we know that it wasn’t by prayer that they were casting them out, otherwise they would have had no need of Jesus’ explanation regarding prayer. They would already have prayed.

It may be unfortunate that we are not informed in more detail of the method that they did use, other than that it was by the authority Jesus had given them, and at times combined with the "anointing with oil", but that probably makes perfect sense, since it is not a limitation modern-day Christians have to contend with. By the power of God’s Spirit since His arrival at Pentecost, and the right-of-access that true believer’s enjoy as the result of our relationship to the Father and His Son, we can live continually in the presence of the Father, through Christ, and in Christ, we have a permanent channel to the Father through which our prayers may pass. It must still be noted, however, that should we place ourselves outside the will of God, by disobedience to His will, or whatever other means, and thus create a wall of separation between ourselves and Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, once again God will cease to hear our prayers. As long as we remain in His will, however, we are one with Him, in Christ, and we share in the power of the Holy Spirit, and nothing will be impossible to us, as our Lord Himself stated:

“… ‘What is impossible with men is possible with God.’”

Luke 18:27

(And with that, we will have to finish up with this reference tomorrow.)

TO BE CONTINUED....

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:66-71

2012-08-20T00:17:00.000-07:00

You also ask, in regards to your first “proof”:

If "our Father who is in heaven gives good things to those who ask him", then if we ask him to cure cancer, he should cure it. Right?”

The way I see it, if you are going to hold Jesus to account for the second half of the sentence that comprises Matthew 7:11, then you must also accept the first half of the same sentence, which reads,

“If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children…”.

Jesus, as recorded in this verse, is encouraging us to take a really hard look at what should be the very best part of any man or woman, aside from their relationship with their Maker, the manner in which they treat their children. Our children are not only physically our flesh and blood in most cases, but spiritually attached to us in a way that no other human relationship can ever compare to. Whether born naturally or adopted, aside from the biological commonalities, there is little or no difference. Children are the diamonds in our crown, the apple of our eye, and in most cases, adults will consider the continuance of their children’s lives to be far more important than the prolongation of their own. You may attribute this to God, as I do, or if you are so inclined, you may attribute it to evolution. Either way you look at it, however, you simply can’t deny that it is without any doubt, one of, if not the most, powerful of all our genetic imperatives. I like to think that the need to ensure the survival of the species is the reason, and God has chosen to use love as the driving force in the accomplishment of this crucial task. But whatever the case may be, if there is anything at all that will bring out the best in a person, it is loving, and caring for their children.

In verses 9 and 10 of the above-given reference, Jesus inquires as to who would reply to their children’s request for something good, (e.g. bread or fish), by giving the child something bad or dangerous; a stone (not really suitable considering the request for food), or a snake, by which the child might be bitten. His point, when taken in the context of this entire reference, is very clear. He is pointing out the fact that even though we humans have been corrupted by sin, and are thus, evil in comparison to God, we still know how to give our children good things by way of answer to their requests of us. We do this as an expression of our love for them, as imperfect as it is. This imperfection within ourselves is something we are all aware of in one way or another, and even accept as a matter of fact. Have we not all, at one time or another, thrown up our hands in despair, or frustration, and declared, “I’m only human!”

He then asks us to look even deeper, and suggests that we consider, therefore, the Father’s perfection, and just how much greater will be His reply, as a result of that perfection, to any request from His children. We, as sinners, might err despite our best intentions; a perfect God can only reply in a perfect manner. An incident from my early childhood may serve to better illustrate the point I am attempting to make.

I was only 8 or 9 years old the year I asked my parents for a chemistry set for either Christmas, or my birthday (they both occur within a couple of weeks of each other). They sold such things 40-50 years ago, and having seen one advertised, I had decided I wanted to be a scientist (I was a rather precocious child). At any rate, my parents finally gave in and purchased one for me. At first, everything went smoothly, as I compounded various green and purple fluids, and grew crystals to my heart’s content. Unfortunately, my desire to discover, outlasted the supply of chemicals that had come with the kit.

Now even at that early an age, I was never one to let such minor obstacles stand in my way. If the chemicals in the kit had run out, then I would have to find my own ingredients. I did so, scrounging through every cupboard in our 3-storey house and amassing a rather impressive collection of household chemicals with which I began to “experiment”. What occurred during one of my self-designed trials was that which I have ever since referred to as, my personal version of “The Big Bang”. It was a rather simple experiment, and in my youthful innocence, I had no idea of the potential danger involved in that which I had set out to do.

First, I added to a rather small glass beaker, approximately a teaspoon of crystal Draino. Then, from a test tube which I had filled with water from the kitchen tap, I proceeded (all the while holding the beaker roughly 8-10 inches in front of my face so that I could observe it very closely) to add the water to the Draino. I have no idea how much water I actually added, because the glass beaker immediately exploded, leaving roughly the top inch of its neck pinched between my two, very startled, fingers. That was the day I learned that when you add water to crystal Draino, it immediately produces temperatures somewhere in the range of 400 degrees Fahrenheit. It is also quite likely that that was the day I started giving God some serious thought. Young as I was, I still had a good idea what the odds were of all that glass and superheated fluid missing my face entirely, as it flew passed and hit the wall behind me. (I may actually be the guy who is responsible for all those repetitious warnings we hear about “not trying this at home”.)

So, when looked upon with the benefit of hindsight, it would seem that my parents acquiescence to my request for a chemistry set could very easily have had some rather tragic consequences. Were my parents bad parents? Not at all. Giving your child a chemistry set was not out of the ordinary in those times, and was even considered by many to be a great way to foster within your child an interest in science. In my case it certainly did, and that interest still remains. Personally, I’ve never really had the difficulties that I understand some people have in accepting that science, in at least some sense, is not at enmity with God, but is in fact, the most excellent way of discovering the methods God used when designing this Creation. That, by the way, is a personal view, and I don’t ask anyone to share it with me, though you are welcome to if you feel yourself moved to do so. But once again, I digress.

The point of this whole recollection is that if my parents had somehow known what would happen with my then future, though now in the past, experiment, they would have very likely refused to buy me the chemistry set in the first place. Their refusal would have been the result (I choose to believe) of their love for me, and their desire to keep me safe from harm – having our home remain intact would simply have been the icing on the cake. But they didn’t know, because they, like all the rest of we humans, suffered from the problem of imperfection. And any decisions arrived at by the use of an imperfect, or limited, mind, can only result in imperfect, or limited, results.

God, on the other hand, suffers from no such limitations. Knowing the past, present, and future, He would already have known all that would result from my possession of the chemistry set, and any decision He made regarding whether or not I should be trusted with such equipment would be based on all the data. I believe the same holds true in all decisions made by God, so if He chooses to refuse one of His children something the child has asked for, there is at least one thing we can be certain of. His omniscience, added to the love He has declared for us, will guarantee that His refusal will in some way always be the best thing that He could have done. Matthew 6:8 states very clearly:

“Do not be like them (the pagans), for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.” (Emphasis and parenthetical statement mine.)

And it must always be remembered that our needs, and our desires, are very often not the same thing. Our “needs” will always contribute to our lasting benefit in some way, such as morally, physically, or spiritually. Receiving our needs will thus be to our edification. Our desires, on the other hand, not always, but often enough, bring only a very temporary benefit, or no true benefit at all other than instant, but brief, gratification of our somewhat less-than-noble desires. This type of worldly desire provides very little, if any, edification, and may even contribute greatly towards our destruction. Thus, the believer’s acceptance of God’s answer to prayer, whether that answer is of a positive, or negative character.

Before leaving this reference of yours, and moving on to the next, let us consider one final verse;

“... The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.”

James 5:16b (Emphasis mine.)

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:58-65

2012-08-19T00:23:00.001-07:00

There is another requirement for prayer to be effective that is also of primary importance, and it is yet another point that got missed in our earlier discussion. Simply put, not only should the one who prays, do so “according to the will of God”, but he/she who prays must also be “in the will of God”. Just a few verses prior to the Scriptures you referenced in Matthew 7, Jesus says to His disciples:

“So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”

Matthew 6:31-33 (Emphasis mine.)

There are two things that should stand out within these verses. That Jesus is, in fact, speaking to believers, since He draws a distinction between they and the “pagans” (non-believers), and that there are certainly prerequisites to effective prayer, in this case “first seeking after God’s kingdom and His righteousness”. This falls into the larger category of pleasing God in all the things we do, which is a major part of remaining in His will. And once again, it is clear that Jesus Himself fulfilled the same requirements that are expected to be satisfied by those who believe in Him. The following is just one of the many statements that Jesus made in regards to being continually in His Father’s will.

“The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases Him.” (Emphasis mine.)

John 8:29

Therefore, if the rather shallow display of honouring the Father in the “prayer” which you have constructed is designed to fulfill the requirement of “pleasing God”, you should take note that this “pleasing of the Lord” is once again something that is meant to be continual, not just on one occasion as a means of achieving a particular personal goal. We can even further verify this point by looking at still another Scripture, 1 John 3:22. The author of this letter is extremely clear about why we receive the things we (believers) ask of God. He says:

“…and receive from Him anything we ask, because we obey His commands and do what pleases Him.

It must be accepted that whenever we receive anything which we have requested from God, we only receive it because we first believe in the Father, and the One He sent, and because we also do our utmost to obey His commands, and always seek His pleasure in all things, always. Let me say it again. Not just on a single occasion, but always. And until you can show at least some sincere effort in that direction, you are way out of line thinking that God has to answer your "prayer".

Now a short ways back, I made passing reference to another very important reason why we pray. I would like to consider this point a little closer at this time. That which I mentioned was the value of conversing with God on a regular basis. I believe this to be of great importance in regards to all things, and not only when we are asking for His blessing upon a particular matter. I am certain, in my heart, that the very first, and most important reason that we pray at all, is that we might satisfy the Lord’s desire to have fellowship with us, and also satisfy our heart’s desire to have that same fellowship, with Him. After all, is it not the desire for a more complete knowledge and understanding of God, and a deeper intimacy with Him, that drives so many of us who seek after Him in the first place. And the desire that God has to interact with us is a blessing so great, that it defies description. Try to imagine for just a moment, if indeed you can, that the One who created the entirety of this Creation within which we find ourselves, wants to be your personal friend.

Consider also if you will, that one of the primary ways we interact with God, is through His Holy Word, so the reading of Scripture should also be considered prayer, since it is in fact, at least a major part of God's answers to the questions we ask of Him. Many offered prayers tend to become one-sided, with much being said by the one who prays, while no time is left for hearing the Lord's reply. This in itself does not negate the prayer, but it's highly unlikely that he who enters into such a conversation, will garner as much benefit as he would if the conversation was of a two-way nature.

So important is this principle regarding the reading of Scripture, that Christians consider it to be their spiritual food, an idea supported by the Bible in such verses as that which follows:

"After fasting forty days and forty nights, he (Jesus) was hungry. The tempter came to Him and said, 'If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.'

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"

Matthew 4:2-4 (Parenthetical comment and emphasis mine.)

So physical strength requires physical food, and spiritual strength requires spiritual food. We, in the modern world, have God's Holy Word, and if we speak to Him in verbal prayer, or if we read His Word in the Bible, at least one of the reasons for doing so is the same in both cases, it is how we feed our Spirit, and grow strong in the Word.

To try and separate a Christian from the Holy Word is not an easy task. You may take away my Bible and my reference books, you may disconnect me from my church, which is my Spiritual family. You might make certain that I never hear another Christian word spoken. What you can never do, however, is remove from my mind, the verses of Scripture I have already committed to memory, or much more important, the presence of the Holy Spirit in my soul, who despite the very worst that this world can throw at me, will always continue to teach me, and to comfort me.

If you need any more convincing of just how important the reading of the Bible is, consider that in Jesus' temptation by Satan in the wilderness (the first few verses which I just quoted above), the Tempter tempts Jesus in three distinct manners[1], and in each and every one (three times), part of the Lord's answer is, "It is written". Jesus, of course, was referring to the books of the Bible which we call "The Old Testament". Today, we have the Old, and the New Testaments, so we need to read them both, and try to understand them as well as Jesus apparently did.

So what happens if the Word is not read, and the prayers are not prayed (very much like in the life of a non-believer)? Well, for the believer, the good news is that it is unlikely to cause a loss of salvation[2], at least I have found nothing in the Holy Word that supports such a view (at least not yet). On the negative side, however, what this failure to read, and to pray, will cause, is a stagnation in immaturity. The writer of the Book of Hebrews was apparently somewhat flustered when he wrote to his audience (though unconfirmed as of yet, many people believe the intended group of readers were the Jewish Christians in Rome), and reprimanded them for their apparent lack of maturity.

"In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil."

Hebrews 5:12-14

To see the connection to my previous point, you only have to note the number of words in these scriptures that relate to food, and how the absence of properly-nourishing sustenance stunts the growth. In the verses that follow these just given, it is also very interesting to note just which teachings were considered the "elementary" truths of God.

"Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And God permitting, we will do so."

Hebrews 6:1-3

I just have to look at that list to recognize, that it is virtually identical to all the main topics that I hear, not just non-believers, but quite regrettably, believers also, constantly arguing about. If these are in fact the only things regarding God that you ever find on your mind, I respectfully suggest that you need to pray, and read your Bible much more often. It might be said that your spiritual diet has caused you to have spiritual rickets. So to state my point a little clearer, and at the risk of redundancy, the state of spiritual immaturity in a non-believer (and yes, you do still have a spirit, even if you don't believe) renders you no better than an infant in a cradle. Until you develop sufficient spiritual strength by truly partaking of the blessed food contained in the Bible, and obtained through fellowship with God, then you have very little, if any chance of praying effective prayer. Until you find the reason, in your heart and soul, to call out to God, and accept Him on His terms, you should only expect any demands you may make of Him to go unanswered.

At any rate, as I already proposed a little earlier, there are still other requirements to be fulfilled before anyone can claim to be offering an effective prayer, and we have discussed the main ones while talking about the thoughts of John Bunyan. In that earlier section we looked at “sincerity”, “sensibility”, and a number of other things that Mr. Bunyan felt were the pre-requisites for a true prayer. For each of those points, I offered Scripture references, and those references should help to clarify (if only in some small way) my position concerning your petition. We need not rehash each of those arguments yet again, so I suggest we move on.

[1] This is a subject worthy of a page all on its own, since the three temptations pretty much cover EVERYTHING that a person could be tempted by.

[2] There are various opinions among Christian believers regarding the possibility of losing one's salvation as the result of doing, or not doing, any number of different things. This, however, is just not the time for that discussion, since we are talking to an unbeliever, who probably has no interest in such things at this time in their life. And since it does not, at this point, have direct bearing on the present conversation, we will have to deal with it in some more appropriate place.

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:54-58

2012-08-18T00:27:00.000-07:00

First, I would like to broach a subject that got passed over in our earlier conversation, but now seems proper to me that we use it to open this new portion of our dialogue. This matter is in itself one of the very first things that must be considered whenever one prays. What is the “reason” for the prayer in the first place?

We know your stated reason, which is to disprove the existence of God. After all, your opening question is, “How might we prove that God is imaginary?” I must point out here that this does not seem to leave any room for actually proving that God might exist, which is a perfect example of the very worst type of pseudo-science. You are starting out with a pre-conceived notion, and are merely attempting to confirm that which you already choose to believe. Should you ever decide that you would like to take up the practice of science, please remember that at least part of the job of a scientist is to observe, and then to draw impartial conclusions based upon those observations, and not upon his personal opinion. Weighed upon the scales of your obvious bias and lack of belief, your petition cannot be expected by anyone who has any understanding of sincere belief, or faith, to produce any results of any worth whatsoever, other than to serve as a confirmation of the fact that your offered “prayer” is not a prayer at all, and thus, there was nothing for God to reply to in the first place.

So then, what about the hypothetical situation that I suggested a little earlier? What if the prayer came from a sincere believer, as opposed to one who has such an obvious axe to grind? In that case we would have to return to the previously made stipulation that a prayer must be made in “accordance with God’s will”. If the one who prays cannot show biblical evidence that such a prayer is indeed regarding something which God has promised, or if he/she cannot at least offer as support for their petition the fact that this prayer is the result of much soul-searching and guidance from the Holy Spirit, then this prayer, innocent as it may be, is no more acceptable than yours. As we discussed earlier, there is no Biblical record of God ever promising the removal of all disease, or suffering, from this earth, whether general or specific, anytime this side of heaven. Let me offer two more scriptures as my biblical support for my above-stated beliefs:

“This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.”

1 John 5:14 (Emphasis mine.)

And,

"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God. For just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows."

2 Corinthians 1:3-5

So it is clear to see that suffering is something to be expected at times in our lives, but we may take comfort in knowing that our sufferings were shared by Our Saviour, and He asks nothing of us that He has not already experienced Himself.

As believers, there are many instances where we can determine God’s will by a diligent, and Spirit-directed, reading of the Bible. As long as that which we seek is clearly stated in the Holy Word, and is understood correctly (spiritually) by the one who prays, we can be assured of a definite answer to our prayer. But there are also times, where one may not be able to determine God’s will in that exact manner. Perhaps, the Lord’s views on a particular subject are not to be found in the Scriptures, or possibly, God’s will regarding that specific matter is in fact contained in His Holy Word, but has yet to be discovered by the one offering the prayer, or yet again, perhaps the one who seeks, has no access to a Bible. It is at times like that that the importance of conversing with God on a regular basis (praying) is truly made apparent. We take the matter that is on our mind to God, through Christ, (very often, repeatedly) until His Spirit convinces our spirit of just what God’s will is in the matter. Then we may pray regarding that matter, very carefully, “according to God’s will”.

Now I am not so naive as to reject the idea that many wrong things have been brought into this existence of ours by the misuse of the above-stated ideas. It is a tragic fact that in this fallen world in which we live, there will always be those who will claim to be doing the work of God, when in fact they are only carrying out their own evil and wretched designs. This is a most troublesome, and far-reaching situation, which has brought much grief to an already troubled world. However, to suggest that a believer, especially a believer who has diligently sought out God’s will through much prayer and sincere soul-searching, should not use the available, and God-sanctioned, means of Divine relief at his disposal, would simply be a terrible case of “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”. Furthermore, the apparent eagerness of such a large portion of our populations, both here in Canada, and among our favourite neighbours to the south of us, to vilify organized religion in general, and Christianity specifically, at the mere drop-of-a-hat, only complicates things.

If you, as I'm sure you do, follow the news, than you are aware that both of our countries have recently experienced at least one very high-profile tragedy. The people of Aurora, Colorado, have had to deal with the effects and the aftermath of that horrific theatre shooting, while we here in Canada are trying to understand how an person could first murder an individual on YouTube, then dismember the body, and mail individual portions to various politicians and others around the country.

The point I wish to make, is that in both of these instances, the alleged perpetrators have entered pleas of "insanity", and now the world sits and watches while the various authorities try to determine the veracity of those claims. In articles which I have read concerning these cases, I am always somewhat surprised to see the comments of those who would seem to think these defenses are valid, which they may, or may not be. My surprise has to do with the apparent "willingness to forgive one who has erred, as long as there is a good reason for it" that seems to come across in so many of the comments. But I have to wonder what the situation would be if either of the defendants had claimed to be motivated by religious beliefs.

Even though the "insanity" defense might be maintained along with the religious claims, I can't help but believe the public outrage would be increased by a factor so large as to be impossible to define. Also, the anger would not likely be focused on the individual's misuse of his religious beliefs, but on the entire religious body within our countries. "Insanity is an excuse, faith is not", is a sentiment that I totally agree with, since I know as a Christian that no true faith leads one to an act of insanity. My foremost desire in this matter, is not about letting a criminal off because he claims he was only following his faith, its about putting the blame where it belongs, on the criminal, not the religious body whose teachings he has distorted. But I digress. So for now, let me gather my thoughts, and we can continue tomorrow.

TO BE CONTINUED.....

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:47-53

2012-08-17T00:36:00.000-07:00

The Non-Supporting Scriptures

Before anything else, I have to admit I had a great deal of difficulty in deciding exactly how I would go about analyzing the claims you have made regarding the scriptures that you insist support your “proofs”. Was this because the claims you made, had, in my opinion, any real substance to them? Not really. As far as I am concerned, your claims all remain close to bordering on the ridiculous.

However, if I do accept that you are actually sincere in any way at all, it is in the fact that you appear to honestly believe that you are making solid, and justifiable arguments. Since it is not in my nature to disqualify without a hearing anything one might have to say about any subject, as long as that which they state is done so sincerely, I finally decided I would make an honest attempt at explaining how you have, perhaps inadvertently, mismanaged each of the scriptures in question.

The mismanagement I speak of may be attributed to many causes, but I believe the main one relates to a scripture that I already quoted earlier, and which deserves to be repeated yet again.

“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (The Scriptures, in their truest essence, came to us by the Spirit of God, and are thus, spiritually received.)

1 Corinthians 2:14 (Emphasis and parenthetical statement mine.)

It is this inability of a non-believer to ever understand the scriptures that I personally believe is the driving force behind so many of the improperly used references that so often appear within their arguments. For the sake of those young “seekers” of whom I mentioned much earlier, however, I decided that an attempt to correct these misused verses was in fact required, less they be misled by the unanswered argument of one who is not even a believer. So let us begin.

You first claim that, “Jesus makes specific promises in the Bible about how prayer is supposed to work”, and in this you speak correctly. Jesus does make specific promises regarding prayer, but it these same specifics that you seem to go out of your way to either alter, or avoid altogether. Let us look now, at both your references, and your included comments.

Matthew 7:7

The first mistake we find is a minor one to be certain, but it still deserves to be mentioned, for it shows the beginning of a pattern which, I believe, will reveal the lack of concern for detail that will come to highlight virtually all of your ensuing comments. The mistake I speak of is in your reference itself. That which you have quoted as Matthew 7:7, is in actuality 4 verses, Matthew 7:7-11.

“Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!”

You comment in regard to these scriptures:

“If "every one who asks receives", then if we ask for cancer to be cured, it should be cured. Right? If "our Father who is in heaven gives good things to those who ask him", then if we ask him to cure cancer, he should cure it. Right? And yet nothing happens.”

The first problem with your statement is that it falls victim to one of the most common errors committed by non-believers and believers alike, an error, I should add, that you commit time and time again in these references that follow. The error consists of quoting a particular Scripture without first considering the context within which that Scripture is found. To discover the context of these particular verses in question, you must go all the way back to the first two verses in Matt., Chapter 5.

“Now when He (Jesus) saw the crowds, He went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to Him, and He began to teach them, saying:...”

Since the verse clearly states that Jesus began to teach His disciples, it may be understood that all that follows was intended for those who believe. The teachings contained in Matthew 5-7 (The Sermon on the Mount) are Jesus’ instructions for how all Christians are to attempt to lead their lives. This says absolutely nothing to unbelievers, and will never even concern them until they, by God’s grace, receive sufficient faith to be saved, and then demonstrate acceptance of that which God has gifted unto them, through obedience to His divine instruction, by their own free will. Only then, can they be considered to be believers, and only then may they claim any promises made by Jesus in these chapters, unto themselves.

There are even conditions attached to the above-mentioned promises that a believer must fulfill before these words can apply to him/her. What are these conditions? To determine that, let us take a closer look at a few of the phrases from Matthew 7:7-11, which you, on your web-site, inadvertently lumped together under the reference of Matthew 7:7. If we appear to jump around somewhat, it is only because there is so very much to be considered within the words in question. At this time, however, I think Matthew 7:8 will serve adequately as a starting point.

“For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.” (Emphasis mine.)

As I am certain you will recall, your question regarding this portion of Scripture went like this: “If "every one who asks receives", then if we ask for cancer to be cured, it should be cured. Right?” Well, though I myself am in no way an authority on the Greek language, I have read, at quite some lengths, the work of those who are authorities, and I have come to believe that the original tense of the Greek verbs that we have translated as, “asks”, “seeks” and “knocks”, were originally structured so as to imply “a continuing action”. Perhaps our English translations should actually read, “For every one who continues to ask receives, and he who continues to seek finds, and to him that continues to knock it will be opened.” As I said a moment ago, though I am not an authority on the Greek language, I can still offer at least some Biblical support for what I have said regarding the three verbs mentioned above. Consider if you will, that which follows.

The statement recounted above from Matthew 7:8, also appears in the Book of Luke, Chapter 11, in what is quite obviously a remembrance of the same event by a different individual. Unlike Matthew, however, Luke also recalls something else Jesus said, and he includes it in his Gospel immediately prior to the verses we are considering, and directly following his recollection of the Lord’s Prayer:

“Then he (Jesus) said to them, “Suppose one of you has a friend, and he goes to him at midnight and says, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, because a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have nothing to set before him.’

“Then the one inside answers, ‘Don’t bother me. The door is already locked, and my children are with me in bed. I can’t get up and give you anything.’ I tell you, though he will not get up and give him the bread because he is his friend, yet because of the man’s boldness he will get up and give him as much as he needs…”

Luke 11:5-8 (Emphasis mine)

The word that appears as “boldness” in verse 8 of the above quotation, comes from a word, that in the Greek original, appears only once in the entire New Testament. The word is “anaideia”, a word that in English may be translated as “importunity”. Furthermore, importunity is defined as “persistence in asking; the act of demanding again and again.[1]” And this is not the only example of Jesus teaching this particular lesson. Only a few chapters further on in the Book of Luke, we have an accounting of Jesus once again telling His disciples a parable…

“…to show them that they should always pray and not give up. He said, “ In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared about men. And there was a widow in that town who kept coming[2] to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’

“For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or care about men, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually wear me out with her coming!’”

Luke 18:1b-5

Both of the above parables highlight cases where the person who receives that which they ask for, receives those things because they persisted in the requests that they were concerned with. The fact of the first parable’s proximity to the disciple’s recounting of the Lord’s Prayer is a solid indicator that Jesus was still engaged in teaching believers how they should pray when He told them the parable. It is clear to any who have eyes to see that Jesus is telling His followers that they should “persist in prayer’ if they truly desire that which they ask for from their heavenly Father. This is but another reason why the “prayer” which you have constructed, with the idea that it should be answered because it was offered one time with no true depth of feeling, is not really a prayer at all. The very first sentence in Luke 18 clearly states the entire point:

“Then Jesus told His disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up”. (Emphasis mine.)

Another error that you have fallen afoul of is best summed up by the following statement: “Scripture must be proven by Scripture.” What this means is that when the significance of one Scripture is called into question, it should be weighed against what all other Scripture says about the subject at hand. It is very rare, indeed, to find a particular verse in the Bible that contains instructions, or a message, that is not supported, or even clarified, by other Scripture within the Holy Word.

Therefore, since you apparently believe that God is obligated to respond, in a positive manner no less, to every request made of Him, by anyone, and since you, in this case, are using Matthew 7:7-11 as your “support” of this belief, it becomes necessary that we see just what it is that other Scriptures have to say about the subjects contained within your reference. Since my own position is that the so-called “prayer” you have offered is simply not worth the pixels you used to display it on the computer screen, I suggest we first take another look at some of the biblical references regarding “requirements for effective prayer”. Having already dealt with this issue at some length during our earlier discussion of John Bunyan’s definition of sincere (and effective) prayer, we need here only touch again briefly on certain of these points, as well as a couple that have yet to be mentioned. And that is where we will pick up tomorrow.

TO BE CONTINUED.......

[1] “Gage Canadian Dictionary”, Gage Learning Corp., 1983, p.584

[2] The phrase “kept coming” in the NIV version of the Scriptures reads “came” in some earlier manuscripts, but before anyone claims that this means she appeared only one time before the magistrate, it must be noted that the original Greek word “ercheto” is in the “imperfect tense”, which implies that she returned quite frequently.

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:43-47

2012-08-16T00:39:00.000-07:00

In Chapter 17 of the Book of John, we have Jesus, shortly before His arrest and subsequent execution, praying to His Father in heaven. We, as believers, are expected to follow Jesus’ example in all things (a task which I admit we are never completely successful at accomplishing). It remains, however, that this is one of the examples of prayer that we should, at least, be striving to emulate even if we cannot do so exactly, or always. This rather lengthy prayer, takes the entirety of the chapter, and is easily seen to be divided into three distinct parts. First of all, in verses 1-5, Jesus prays for Himself, stating that He has completed the work He was sent to do, and requesting the return of the Glory He possessed even before the world was created. This is often reflected by older Christians in their belief (correct or otherwise) that they themselves have completed the task(s) which were set before them by God, and their ensuing desire that they should now be allowed to return to their Maker.

The next part of the prayer, verses 6-19, contain Jesus’ specific prayer for His disciples, the eleven who remained true to Him. Verse 9 is especially pertinent to the discussion at hand:

“I pray for them (His disciples). I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. (Emphasis and parenthetical statement mine for clarification.)

And verse 14 pinpoints this sentiment even more:

“I have given them (His disciples) your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.” (Emphasis and parenthetical statement mine for clarification.)

I stress yet again, the promises of God were not given to the world in general, but specifically to those who believe, and are thus His children.

The Christian’s reflection of this portion of Jesus’ prayer is when we pray for the growth and improvement of the organized church in general. We pray for its continuance, we pray for its growth, and we pray for its continued adherence to, and accurate teaching of, the things entrusted to its care by the Lord. Much as in those early days when the world (according to Jesus) hated the things He had entrusted to the disciples, so now in the present does much of the world hate those same things which are now entrusted to the organized church, by the disciples.

In the third division of Christ’s prayer, which is comprised of verses 20-26, Jesus prays for all believers. Verse 20 actually defines the term “believer” when Jesus states:

“My prayer is not for them (His disciples) alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,…” (Through the New Testament message that the disciples passed on to others.) (Emphasis and parenthetical statement mine for clarification.)

The mirroring of this third part of the prayer by Christians works a little differently. This portion is reflected not only by our prayers for each other (believer-believer), but also by our prayers for unbelievers (believer-unbeliever), since unlike God, we have no way of knowing who exactly among unbelievers will one day come to be a believer. Jesus, on the other hand, was not restricted in this way, for He was sinless, and thus remained always in His Father’s will. His prayer for all believers would thus include those who He knew would someday become believers.

You will have noticed by now, however, that at no time did Jesus ever claim to be praying on behalf of the world in general, but only for Himself, His disciples, and any who would come to believe in Him by hearing the message that the disciples would bring to the world concerning our Lord and Saviour. It should be noted that the final portion of this prayer includes every person on the face of the earth, with the exception of any, who, by the exercise of their own free will, have heard this message, and then chosen to reject it.[1] And that brings us around to the final stipulation in John Bunyan’s definition of true prayer.

This final point states that prayer must be accompanied by “submission in faith to the will of God[2]”. And if the word of John Bunyan is not good enough for you on that specific matter, then you should recall that Jesus Himself made the same stipulation when teaching believers how they should pray in that section of the Holy Word that has come to be known as “The Lord’s Prayer”.

“This, then, is how you should pray:

Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,

your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Matthew 6:9-10 (Emphasis mine.)

It is even recorded that Jesus Himself remained true to this stipulation in the garden of Gethsemane, when He prayed to His Father, just prior to His arrest and execution.

“…”My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

Matthew 26:39 (Emphasis mine.)

So just what does it mean to submit to God’s will? It means that in the end, whatever our prayer may be in regards to, we can only lay it, through Christ, at God’s feet, and know in faith that God will answer our prayer in whatever manner He, in His infinite Wisdom, sees best. We may also, in faith, believe that whatever God’s answer might be, it will certainly be to the best advantage of the church in general that He answered it in that manner, and thus, any glory that is manifested by the answered prayer will be His specifically. It should also be noted that if we remain in Christ, we will only pray for those same things that Jesus prayed for, and since God would never say no to Jesus, who is always in the Father's will, we can always expect that our prayers will be granted.

A Couple Thoughts On Prayer

It is clear that he does not pray, who, far from uplifting himself to God, requires that God shall lower Himself to him, and who resorts to prayer not to stir the man in us to will what God wills, but only to persuade God to will what the man in us wills.

-Thomas Aquinas-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The function of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change the nature of the one who prays.

-Soren Kierkegaard-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the next installment we will begin looking at the Scriptures you have offered as support for your position. So until tomorrow.....

TO BE CONTINUED.....

[1] I realize that at the present time there are still many on this earth who have not yet heard the message of the Gospel, and that is why we have so many of God’s children working in the various mission fields. As for the matter of those who have both lived, and died, without hearing the message, I can only say that this is a concern that is beyond my present capability to understand, but I truly believe that God has both considered the situation, and acted upon it. I know, by faith, that the action taken by God, can only be the correct one.

[2] “Prayer”, John Bunyan, Puritan Paperbacks, Banner of Truth Trust, 1965, p.22

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:39-43

2012-08-15T00:12:00.000-07:00

My first thought regarding why God has never promised such a thing as "the immediate curing of every case of cancer in the world", is actually a pretty simple one. I believe the request to be far too corporate in scope. The God most Christians worship is a personal God; a God we must each search for, and find, on our own, or in relatively small groups. Never in the Bible, but three times, are there given accounts of God dealing with the entire human population of the world at one time. I refer, of course, to the “Tower of Babel”, the story of “The Flood”, and the future events surrounding the end times that are recounted in "The Revelation". It is interesting to note that on all of those occasions, God dealt with the vast majority of the world “in judgement”, having “mercy” on only 8 individuals (see Genesis 6-8 and Genesis 11:1-9) in one of the cases now past, and those who make up the body of Christ, to be saved in the future. There are also, in addition to that already mentioned above, various prophecies scattered throughout the Bible[1] which deal at a wide-scale level. Many of these prophecies also regard judgements yet to come. It would seem that judgement is quite often a national process as opposed to mercy which is far more personal and intimate.

So while I cannot believe that the request for the curing of every case of cancer in the world, is in itself a valid request of God, I would have no such reservations if the request were made by an individual, or small group, with one or more specific cases of cancer in mind. I believe prayers of that nature are indeed offered up to God each and every day by those who believe, with any results manifested by such prayers constrained to each of the individual cases. Personal replies from a personal God. And it must be remembered that any such reply, will at times, for reasons most likely known only to God Himself, be “No”, or “Not at this time”.

One of the reasons I believe that God allows for the existence of cancer in this world is one of those same reasons that prompted my earlier apology for anything I might have to include by way of argument while looking at the nature of this “prayer”. Anything but simply put, cancer, as is the case with so much of the suffering that exists in this world, can be a very effective means of bringing one to the point of a believing faith, and reliance upon God. Remember John 3:16.

“For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes[2] in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

And God, as a great and loving Father to us all, will use whatever means are necessary to insure that we acquire the eternal life that He desires for us. Are there any among us who passed through their entire childhood without their earthly parents disciplining them at some time. That discipline was quite likely administered with the good intention of helping us to obtain some goal in our life that was good and noble. However, as good and noble as it may have been, it could never be compared to the goal God has in mind for us; “life eternal in paradise”. So if we suffer now, it may help, at least a little, to remember Paul’s words as recorded in the Book of Romans:

“Now if we are children, then we are heirs – heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in His sufferings in order that we may also share in His glory.

I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.”

Romans 8:17-18 (Emphasis mine.)

So am I saying that cancer is a good thing? No, I am not. Am I saying that anyone who suffers from cancer is being punished for one particular sin or another? Again, no, I am not. What I am suggesting is that cancer, as well as all suffering, could very possibly be considered to be one or more of the consequences we face every day because we live in a world that is in a “fallen” state . It might perhaps be seen as a result of the same evil and corruption that is now at work in this world, that God, by His mercy and grace, seeks to save us from. So important does God consider this mission to be, that He sacrificed His own Son, that He might provide for us a means of escape.

As a believer, I am certain that God will cut no corners in accomplishing that which He has set out to do. If He can use an individual’s existing pain, or suffering, as a means of bringing that individual to salvation, then I believe He will surely do so. What I don’t believe is that He punishes anyone by causing their individual pain. We are, at present, enjoying a period of God’s mercy and grace; a period of time designed to foster reconciliation, and peace with God. Inflicting pain upon those whom He desires reconciliation with strikes me as being somewhat self-defeating. The pain with which we must contend on a daily basis is far more likely the result of this fallen environment within which we presently exist, or the consequences of living our personal lives in partial, or complete, opposition to the ways in which we have been instructed to live by the very One who created us, thus, bringing much of our discomfort upon ourselves. If you find yourself having difficulty in getting your head around that statement, then try this; can you, as a non-believer, show me any proof that the pain and suffering that we do experience throughout our lives, would not be even greatly magnified if God’s grace and mercy were in fact to be withdrawn? Thus, we have no way of knowing just how much more suffering we are being spared at any given time through the agency of a merciful, and compassionate Creator.

Nevertheless, these are but two possible reasons which have occurred to me, and there are probably many more reasons, perhaps all better than these, which are plainly beyond my ability to discuss at this time. So let us move on to the next point in Bunyan’s argument, that prayer should be “for the good of the Church[3]”.

This particular stipulation might, on the surface, appear selfish, or even arrogant. After all, why should only the church benefit from any good that results from a prayer offered to God? Precisely, because it is only to those in the church (the body of Christ) that the promises of God were given, and it is only the believers among us, who, by the help of the Spirit, can offer up effective prayer. Since the promises of God were given to believers, and since true prayer should always be concerned with the things God has promised, it then stands to reason that if one is not praying for the betterment of the church, or the advancement of God’s plan (God is also a believer), then they are praying with wrong motives, for they are not praying for “such as God has promised”. We can verify this quite easily, and that is where we will pick up tomorrow.

TO BE CONTINUED......

[1]See the books of Ezekiel, Daniel, and The Revelation just for starters.

[2] It should be noted that the most important word in this Scripture is not “whoever” as so many atheists like to claim, but “believes”, which effectively limits the scope of the statement.

[3] “Prayer”, John Bunyan, Puritan Paperbacks, Banner of Truth Trust, 1965, pp.21-22

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:29-38

2012-08-14T00:25:00.000-07:00

So if we now continue following Bunyan’s argument, we need to look at how the Spirit decides on what it is that He urges us to pray for. Quite simply put, we are urged by the Spirit to pray “for such things as God has promised[1]”. Now that might sound quite simple and straightforward, and in many ways it is. But there are also complexities to this proviso that must be investigated and considered. To do so, in relation to the “prayer” we are considering, it is now time to take a closer look at the subject of that particular “prayer” which you suggested, the immediate curing of every case of cancer in the world. Before I can feel comfortable doing this, however, there is something that I feel needs to be said.

I find it somewhat unfortunate, and even disturbing, that you should use cancer as an example in what I see as being a very flippant and lighthearted manner. The pain and the suffering caused by this devastating disease, as well as the totally destructive nature by which it is characterized, is not, in my opinion, something to be publicly minimized by its use on a page such as the web-site you have authored, in the procedure which you have suggested.

Each and every day, countless people stand helpless as this killer of body, and spirit, ravages their very lives, or possibly, the lives of one or more of those who are near and dear to them. If you sir/madam/whatever[2] can’t give to the disease the proper amount of fearful respect which it in itself, as one of the world’s most prolific killers, deserves, perhaps you could at least honor those who must fight every day with this evil for the very breath they breath. I say this sincerely, and from the heart, as one whose mother lost her battle with that beast when I wasn’t even 10 years old, and whose eldest brother gave so much of his insides to the same disease, that he spent his latter years burdened with the continual presence of a colostomy bag. And even then, I could only pray that it stopped there, until my second eldest sister surrendered a breast, yet again, to the same disease.

You could have used any number of other subjects as the focus of your argument, and I respectfully suggest that if perhaps you had a little more spirituality in your own life, you might be a little more sensitive to those others who share this world with you.

With all that being said, let me now apologize in advance to any who may read these pages, for anything I might say in my following arguments concerning the suffering of this world in general, and the specter of cancer specifically. I mean no disrespect to all those who are affected by this disease each and every day, but “God Is Imaginary” set the playing field, and I feel quite certain that if I were to in any way change the nature of the offered “prayer”, I would be immediately written off as not being able to make answer to the “proof” in question. So once again, I apologize in advance for any offence taken, or pain caused by, any of the things I need to say on the pages that follow. For whatever its worth, the chances are very good that I will share in at least some of your discomfort and pain, as I hope and pray that I will also always share in your hope and your joy.

So the task before us now is to determine if the subject of your “prayer” is anything that God is in any way obligated to respond to. These considerations should include whether that prayer be offered by either a non-believer, or a believer, and should any response given by God, be in the manner that you desire, or in any other way of His choosing. In short, does the subject of your “prayer” reflect “such a thing as God has promised”? I personally believe the easy and simple answer in either of the above-stated cases, believer or non-believer, is a plain and simple “No”. However, before we can look directly at the subject of your petition, we need to remind ourselves that your “prayer” itself fails to meet even the most basic requirements of what a prayer should be. There is no sincerity, there is no truly heartfelt need, there is not even the honest belief that God exists. Any one of these three things is enough in itself to disqualify, so to speak, your grouping of words from being recognized as a serious prayer. So if we truly desire to look closer at the request of God that you have suggested, and if we are to delve deeper into the question of the suitability of such a request regarding its inclusion in a prayer, then I believe we will have to set up a very loose, and hypothetical situation. So let us just imagine, for the sake of argument, that the request before us, the curing of every case of cancer in the world, was a request made by a truly sincere believer, who in all innocence was honestly seeking God’s glory and the betterment of human-kind.

My first concern has to be the obvious one. The very structure inherent in the words offered as the “prayer”, when combined with the stated intent of your web-site in general, in actuality, make your words appear less like a prayer, and much more closely akin to a “test”, or a “challenge” if you will. What is being asked for basically, is a sign; a sign of such magnitude that any and all doubts of God’s existence should be eradicated in one fell swoop. And if so, then where is faith? Just as important, where is obedience? And what does our Lord have to say about unbelievers who ask for signs?

“The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested Him by asking Him to show them a sign from Heaven. He replied, …’A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign (such as the curing of every case of cancer in the world?), but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah (a reference to His soon-to-occur resurrection)’. Jesus then left them and went away.”

Matthew 16:1-2a, 4 (Parenthetical statements mine for clarification.)

Now I do not mean to imply by my earlier questions regarding faith and obedience, that the prayer, as we are presently looking at it, is not sincere, for we have stipulated in our hypothetical situation that it is in fact the prayer “of a sincere believer”. What I do mean to imply is that the prayer is offered imperfectly, which in no way takes away from the earnestness of the one who prays, but more so indicates an honest lack of understanding. However, with that being said, this lack of understanding does not change the simple fact that the one praying in this case is in essence asking God to provide “a sign” establishing His existence in a manner so concrete as to eliminate the need for faith. Whoever prays such a prayer will certainly not be among the first to do so.

In the Christian belief system, the enemy, or Satan, is also referred to as “the Tempter”, at least in part, due to his tempting (or testing) of Jesus in the wilderness.

“Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. ‘If you are the Son of God,’ he said, 'throw yourself down. For it is written:

‘He will command His angels concerning you,

and they will lift you up in their hands,

so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.[3]’”

Matthew 4:5-6

You will note that Satan tried to use a particular scripture as support for that which he requested of Jesus, very much like you do in support of your “proofs”. If Jesus had done as He was requested, surviving the test would have confirmed His Deity then, in much the same manner as “curing every case of cancer in the world” would confirm it today. But rather than take Satan up on the offer, Jesus replied,

...”It is also written: “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.[4]”

Matthew 4:7

I would like to be very clear here about what I am saying. First of all, I certainly do believe that God answers prayer, and of that I have much evidence in my own life. At least indirectly, by the answering of personal prayers of mine, God has increased my faith, and thus, my belief in His existence has been even more firmly established. So therefore, it could be said that I myself have at various times, “put God to the test”. And there are even Biblical examples of similar instances of an individual performing “tests” of this nature; a nature, I must point out, that is completely different from the nature of your “prayer”, as we shall soon see. By way of example, we need only briefly review the Biblical accounting of Gideon. I’m sure many people, believers and non-believers alike, are familiar with Gideon, and his multiple testings to ensure that a message he had received was in fact from God, and was not just a product of his own imagination, or the plot of an evil spirit. For those who are not familiar with these tests they involved a woolen “fleece”, and the tests worked in the following manner.

“Gideon said to God, “If you will save Israel by my hand as you have promised – look, I will place a wool fleece on the threshing floor. If there is dew only on the fleece and all the ground is dry, then I will know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you said.” And that is what happened. Gideon rose early the next day; he squeezed the fleece and rung out the dew – a bowlful of water.

Then Gideon said to God, “Do not be angry with me. Let me make just one more request. Allow me one more test with the fleece. This time make the fleece dry and the ground covered with dew.” That night God did so. Only the fleece was dry; all the ground was covered with dew.”

Judges 6:36-40

So what is it that makes the situation with Gideon any different than the situation with the prayer that we are currently considering? They both are basically “tests”. Well, if we are talking about the prayer as it was originally suggested on your web-page “God Is Imaginary”, then the main difference is that unlike you, Gideon was a believer who was praying to a God that he knew very deeply in his heart, existed. Gideon was also possessed of a true believer’s “awe” of the living God, as is evidenced by his initial reaction when he first encountered “the angel of the Lord[5]”, and subsequently had it proven to him that it was indeed God that he had been speaking with. So alarmed is Gideon by this realization that he feels certain that he must now perish[6]. We know that this was the very fear that was in his heart, by the reassurance given him from the Lord Himself:

“When Gideon realized that it was the angel of the Lord, he exclaimed, “Ah, Sovereign Lord, I have seen the angel of the Lord face to face!”

But the Lord said to him, “Peace! Do not be afraid. You are not going to die.”

Judges 6:22-23 (Emphasis mine.)

Once again, it is this deep reverence for God, this awe and wonder, that sets a believer apart from those who do not believe, establishing the sincerity and respect of which we spoke earlier. And how did Gideon express his gratitude?

“… Gideon built an altar to the Lord there and called it The Lord Is Peace…”

Judges 6:24

It is imperative to understand that Gideon did not devise these tests as a means of establishing whether or not there was a God, he already believed that very deeply. Rather, he asked for signs so he could be assured that it was the true and living God who was sending him on the particular mission in question. His uncertainty does not speak of unbelief, but of self-doubt, rooted in his humble amazement at the fact that he should be the one chosen for such a task[7]. This speaks of a humility that is admirable before God, much more desirable than the boastful pride that is so often exhibited by men who consider themselves to be the highest power.

If Gideon had not accepted in the first place that there was indeed a living God, who in His infinite wonder might actually have decided that Gideon would be the tool by which He saved Israel, then perhaps Gideon would simply have written the whole thing off as the work of an over-active imagination and continued on with the threshing that he had been occupied with when the messenger first arrived. Since he did, however, believe in God, he took the whole affair very seriously and set about trying to confirm that which he perceived to be happening. Questioning God may, as a primary response, leave something to be desired, but it is certainly understandable, since the circumstances were quite out of the ordinary. We are even instructed elsewhere in the Holy Word that we should test the spirits to see if they are, in fact, from God.

“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

1 John 4:1

It should be noted that the author of 1 John was speaking, through a letter, to believers in one or more of the churches of his time. This is made clear a few verses later when the author states:

“We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us.”

1 John 4:6

So we know that Gideon was sincere in his belief in God, and we know that he was in awe of his creator. We also know that his prayer, or petition, was channelled to God through the agency of “the angel of the Lord”.

The phrase “the angel of the Lord” is a phrase that is commonly believed to describe a “theophany” – an appearance of God Himself[8]. This type of appearance can also be considered, and is by many, as an appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ. So Gideon did indeed offer his prayer “through Christ”. And as for whether or not Gideon offered his prayer according to “such as God has promised” we need only take another look at verses 36 and 37 in Judges 6 to see that,

“Gideon said to God, “If you will save Israel by my hand, as you have promised – …,as you said.“ (Emphasis mine)

So Gideon was simply asking for proof of something that he felt God had already promised him. Which brings us back to our original question as to whether “the curing of every case of cancer on the planet” is actually anything that God has ever promised would occur in this life. I believe the answer to that is “No, He has not.” Certainly not by using the name cancer specifically, and to the best of my knowledge, not in regards to, any or all illness or suffering in general. I am also convinced that with my admittedly limited understanding, I could never even begin to enumerate the different reasons why God has never promised such a thing. I do, however, think I can offer at least a couple of valid suggestions. That however, is a task best begun tomorrow.

TO BE CONTINUED...

[1] “Prayer”, John Bunyan, Puritan Paperbacks, Banner of Truth Trust, 1965, pp.20-21

[2] The actual name of whoever authored your web-page does not appear to be readily apparent anywhere on your site. Whether this is a reflection of your desire for privacy, or whatever, I intend no rudeness by my comment.

[3] Psalm 91:11-12

[4] Deuteronomy 6:16

[5] Judges 6:11-21

[6] It was commonly believed in Gideon’s time that a face-to-face meeting with the Lord would result in the death of whoever it was who saw Him. Even today, it is believed that the only reason we can approach the Lord, even in prayer, is because as believers, we do so “in Christ”.

[7] Judges 6:15

[8] See “The Wycliffe Bible Commentary”, Moody Press, 1962, p.245, regarding Judges 6:11, et al

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:22-28

2012-08-13T00:09:00.001-07:00

After sincerity, the next point Bunyan made in his description of prayer was that a prayer must be “sensible”[1]. We need to first consider the word itself since the meaning of that term when used today often has connotations that were not entirely the case in Bunyan’s time. We tend to use this word as a synonym for "rightly reasonable", but in the 1600's it had a much closer relationship to "perceiving physical or mental sensations".

I think what Mr. Bunyan was getting at is that a believer is drawn to prayer when he “senses” within himself a true need of God’s grace, or mercy in his life. Or perhaps he prays when he is so overcome by a sense of God’s majesty or power that he can think of nothing but praising the One by whom he was created. He might also be filled with the desire to thank God for mercies already bestowed, or he might find himself so distraught by his own suffering, or the suffering of another, that he can do nothing but fall to his knees and beseech his Lord for mercy and grace on his or the other person’s behalf.

The point is that true prayer is something a person feels strongly, and deeply, called to. This feeling resides deep in the heart and in the soul, and it is never a simple uttering of meaningless sentiments. Consider if you will, Paul’s description of Epaphras to the church at Colosse, when he says:

“…He is always wrestling in prayer for you,…”

Colossians 4:12b

The word we interpret as “wrestling” in the above Scripture is derived from the Greek word “agonizo”. This is the same word from which we get the English term “agonize”, and what Paul is trying to tell the members of the church is just how intense are the prayers being offered by Epaphras in their behalf.

People are often so emotional during prayer and feel so strongly the need to pray correctly, that they will lose their ability to formulate words at all, resorting to groans and sighs that will escape their lips unbidden. But this is fine for God’s Word tells us

“...the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. “

Romans 8:26b (Emphasis mine.)

So if there is no true sense of this need to pray within the heart or the soul, then a prayer simply becomes an act of futility. If you don’t truly sense, and thus believe, that there is a God that hears your prayer, a God who by knowing what’s in your heart and soul already knows what you truly need, and if you don’t have a concrete belief that this God answers the prayers of His children, then what is the use of praying at all? You certainly are wasting your time if you are offering prayers to a God you don’t believe exists.

The next thing Bunyan includes in his description is that a true prayer must not only be “sensible”, but there must be a proper “affectionate pouring out of the soul to God,[2]” for God is the one to whom you are praying. Bunyan expresses this thought this way: “When the affections are indeed engaged in prayer, then the whole man is engaged, and that in such sort that the soul will spend itself, as it were, rather than go without that good desired...”[3]. A believer’s awe of God is also covered by this same point, for it is his own conception of the amazing magnitude of God that causes the one who truly prays to very often stumble as he struggles to determine how best to express that which is in his heart. If he truly recognizes the greatness of the One to whom he prays, the difficulty in praying correctly becomes very understandable. The Scriptures that support this thought are so plentiful as to be uncountable; here is just a sampling:

“Who can proclaim the mighty acts of the Lord or fully declare His praise?”

Psalm 106:2

or,

“I will sing to the Lord all my life;

I will sing praise to my God as long as I live.”

Psalm 104:33

or the very example of our Lord and Saviour,

“And being in anguish, He prayed more earnestly, and His sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.

Luke 22:44

So you see, prayer that is entered into lightly is not really prayer at all. First, you must feel the strong need, whether for supplication, or intercession, or praise and thanksgiving, or whatever else the Spirit may use to bring you to your knees. But if you feel no honest, heartfelt “need” to approach your Creator, or if your personal belief regarding the Creator is that He does not exist, I would suggest respectfully, that you don’t hold your breath waiting for a reply.

Also, in this same portion of Bunyan’s description of prayer is the requirement that this pouring out of the heart and soul to God must be “through Christ[4]”. If you don’t believe that Jesus was the incarnate God, or that He does indeed intercede on behalf of His children at God’s throne of grace, then your prayer can only be ineffectual. For Jesus Himself has told us in His Holy Word,

...”I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (Emphasis mine.)

John 14:6

Before you can come to the Father through Jesus, however, you must believe in Jesus, and that involves believing in who Jesus claimed Himself to be. If Jesus was not the incarnate God, if He was not resurrected, and if He did not ascend into Heaven where He now sits at the side of the Father, then the Doorway through which we have access to God does not exist, and our prayers will never be heard. To put it succinctly, you must have faith, for..

“...without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.”

Hebrews 11:6 (Emphasis mine.)

As noted earlier, this type of true faith cannot be simply turned on at will (in this case for the purpose of uttering a single “sincere” prayer), and then be discarded again once the “test” is complete. If you have no faith, you might indeed “pray” (speak with God), but, and this will be important when we look at the individual Scripture verses you offered in this “proof”, God is under no Self-imposed obligation, despite the claims on your web-site, to answer, or even hear you.[5]

Hand-in-hand with the preceding stipulation comes Bunyan’s next requirement for true and sincere prayer, that said prayer should come about by “the strength or assistance of the Spirit[6]”. We have already touched on this subject briefly when we discussed a little earlier the believer’s sense of the “need” to pray, and the necessity of the Spirit’s help in knowing both “what” to pray for, and “how” to pray for it. If we add a second verse to our previous Scripture reference, the point I am attempting to make might perhaps be seen a little more clearly.

“...the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And He who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will.”

Romans 8:26b-27

What this says to me is that not even those who have the Spirit within themselves (believers), are capable of conceiving on their own, a prayer that would be considered suitable before a Holy God. Due to the corrupt nature we acquired as a result of the Fall, it is only God’s Spirit within us which is capable of praying correctly and effectively. That is why we need to hear the “call” to pray, which is manifested as a deep-seated need to speak with God, and also the reason we need the help of the Spirit to pray correctly once we give in to His urging to pray in the first place. Because…

“… God has revealed it to us by His Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God…This is what we speak, not in words taught us by wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.”

1 Corinthians 2:10-11,13

And why exactly is it that a non-believer cannot be included in the above-given message? The answer is contained in another of those Scriptures that we have already looked at.

“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned….But we have the mind of Christ.”

1 Corinthians 2:14,16b (Emphasis mine.)

And just what does it mean when Paul says that “we have the mind of Christ”? It means that those who have the Spirit of God within them, and faithfully follow the Spirit’s leading, will know what God’s will for them is, and have at least some understanding of God’s purpose. If only the Spirit is privy to even the deep thoughts of God (1 Corinthians 10:11), then the only way to know these things is to accept the Spirit’s teaching and to always be attentive to that which He is willing to teach us. The one who has the Spirit within them will be able to grasp, at least in part, the true magnificence of God, and will have at least some understanding of the true, and vile nature of sin. Thus, they will see much more clearly than one who is without the Spirit, our desperate need of salvation. Their worldly view, and understanding of things will in effect be transformed by the Spirit until those views and understandings conform to the wisdom of God rather than the wisdom of the world. This is only possible if one possesses the Spirit, and accepts the Spirit’s teachings.

So if Christians need the Spirit’s help to speak with God, how can any prayer of a non-believer be effective, unless, the Spirit has first called that person to pray, in which case, the Spirit will also impress upon that person’s heart and soul just what it is that they should be praying for. He certainly does so with believers. To put this yet another way, the subject of a true prayer is decided not by the individual who is doing the praying, but by God’s Spirit, who then spurs the individual to action through the agency of the individual’s heart and soul. Our “free will” comes into play when we decide whether or not we will heed the Spirit’s call. It is even in this same way that we are assured of our relationship to the Father.

“The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.”

Romans 8:16

The questions that continually remain then, are whether we will first believe what the Spirit is testifying to, and will we then choose to act upon, or rebel against, that which He has impressed upon our hearts.

TO BE CONTINUED.....

[1] “Prayer”, John Bunyan, Puritan Paperbacks, Banner of Truth Trust, 1965, pp.14-16

[2] “Prayer”, John Bunyan, Puritan Paperbacks, Banner of Truth Trust, 1965, pp.16-19

[3] “Prayer”, John Bunyan, Puritan Paperbacks, p.16

[4] “Prayer”, John Bunyan, Puritan Paperbacks, Banner of Truth Trust, 1965, pp.18-19

[5] This concept of what God has, or has not, promised to do for this world in general, or for Believers in particular, will be dealt with in much more detail as this work progresses.

[6] “Prayer”, John Bunyan, Puritan Paperbacks, Banner of Truth Trust, 1965, pp.19-20a

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:16-22

2012-08-12T00:31:00.001-07:00

(Erroneous) Proof #1

Try Praying

The opening pair of sentences on the page you have so optimistically entitled “Proof #1” consist of your explanation of the method by which you will substantiate your first so-called proof. It would seem that you have chosen to employ the process of “proof by contradiction”, and you have outlined your proposed method for doing so in some detail. Let us now take a closer look at what you have proposed.

The two sentences we are considering are composed of another of your questions, also followed by your own answer to that question. The two sentences read as follows:

““How might we prove that God is Imaginary? One way would be to find a contradiction[1] between the definition of God and the God we experience in the real world.” (Emphasis mine.)

The first thing I have to ask you is just what definition of God are you referring to? As a long-time Christian I can tell you that even among believers, whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or whatever, there are multiple definitions of the Supreme Being, oftentimes within the same faith, many of them quite different from each other. That’s why the search for spiritual understanding is very much a personal thing, often, if not always, reliant on where in their spiritual journey an individual finds themselves at any given time. As I stated earlier, my own Christian beliefs are in many ways still evolving, and I suspect they will continue to evolve until the day of my death.

My next question is in regards to your phrase “the God we experience”. If you don’t believe God exists, how can you claim to experience Him at all? What exactly are these “experiences” you speak of? I would suggest that what you, and any other non-believer, experiences during day-to-day existence is simply the world you and they, and we, are surrounded by. If you are unhappy with those experiences, perhaps you should be complaining about the world, and not about a God who you believe is imaginary. After all, when was the last time you blamed all your troubles on a leprechaun? So, if you have no “experience of God” to compare to whatever definition you might choose, there is no way for you to establish your contradiction, and your entire “method” fails. If, however, you were an individual who believed in God, and if you believed a certain definition of that same God to be true, then you might be able to establish grounds for what you consider to be a contradiction, in the way that you perceive that personal God of your beliefs to behave. I’ll even go so far as to suggest that this is indeed a problem for many believers; a problem made only slightly easier to bear by the fact that we, unlike you apparently, accept the limitations of our own perception of things, knowing by the Spirit that things are not always as we perceive them to be. I myself believe that only God has perfect perception, and that is one of the most significant reasons why I trust Him, even when I don’t understand Him.

It would seem that you offer as a means of obtaining this “proof” the following procedure. It should be noted here that you are apparently suggesting this “test” be performed, at least some of the time, by flat-out non-believers, or those who are not yet certain of what they believe. Though I’m confident that prayers similar to this have been offered up in the past by at least some believers among us, I personally feel that no Christian mature enough to have a reasonable understanding of the God they serve would be disappointed by their failure to receive that which they have asked for in this manner. (The reasons behind this statement I have just made will be brought to light in the course of these following pages. I refrain from offering them immediately in the interests of “order of argument”).

You ask what would happen if one were to get down on their knees and offer to God (the same God you do not even believe exists) the following “prayer” which is a direct excerpt from your web-site:

“Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.”

You then stipulate that the above prayer would be offered “...sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways.” (Emphasis mine.)

After this comes your question and answer, which we have already discussed on the previous pages.

Next, you offer your opinions on why each of the Scripture verses you have specified in the above-mentioned “prayer” is either an outright lie, or supportive of your “proof” in one way or another. Well, we will get to each of the individual Scriptures in a little bit, but as a starting point, let’s take a look at the first part of the procedure that you have outlined, the “prayer” itself.

Given that you could even get a non-believer to lower himself to his knees and pray to God in the first place, there are still many reasons that the “prayer” is a farce. Just to begin with, prayer is a gift from the Father in Heaven to the believers among us, and those, who while yet considering themselves to be unbelievers, have nonetheless been called by the Holy Spirit to repent of their worldly ways; those who have been motivated by His power to seek after the true and living God. As Paul teaches in the New Testament:

“... it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9). (Emphasis mine.)

To understand a little better exactly what I’m getting at, we can take a look at some of the words of an acknowledged authority on the subject of prayer, John Bunyan, the author of the well-known story “Pilgrim’s Progress”.

In 1662 Bunyan published a written work[2] while he was captive in Bedford Prison, and he later, in 1692, published another volume[3], the subject of both tomes centering on the “true nature of prayer”.Within these works, Bunyan, among other things, offers a one-sentence definition of prayer which he then breaks into 7 parts, or points. He goes on to discuss each of the points in some detail.[4] I personally believe that this is one of the most accurate, yet concise, descriptions of prayer that I have come across in all the studies and readings I have done on this subject. The sentence is worded as follows:

“Prayer is a sincere, sensible, affectionate pouring out of heart or soul to God, through Christ, in the strength and assistance of the Holy Spirit, for such things as God has promised, or according to His Word, for the good of the church, with submission in faith to the will of God”.

Now it shouldn’t take a genius to see that the procedure offered as “Proof # 1” has already failed in many different ways. Let us look at several of these failures, each in its turn.

First of all, neither “sincerity”, nor “faith”, is something an individual can turn on or off at will, as though they were twisting a kitchen tap in order to obtain a refreshing drink of water. You either are sincere, or you aren’t. The very definition of “sincerity” involves “freedom from pretense, or deceit”[5] As the web-master of the site in question you have not only professed to be a non-believer, but have demonstrated quite publicly that you have no true belief in a living God. Therefore, any “show” of praying that you, or any other non-believer may offer, will most likely lack in the sincerity, and genuine poverty of spirit, that is necessary to make prayer effective. You know in your heart, and we know by your public actions, that just as soon as you are finished uttering the so-called prayer, you will go right back to your declared position of disbelief, “as a dog returns to its vomit...” (Proverbs 26:11a). Therefore, the prayer in question is not sincere, since you don’t even believe God exists. This that follows is just a taste of what the Word of God has to say about that:

“If I had cherished sin in my heart,

the Lord would not have listened;..

Proverbs 66:18 (Emphasis mine)

and,

“You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.”

Jeremiah 29:13 (Emphasis mine)

and,

“...when he (who prays) asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.”

James 1:6-8 (Parenthetical statement and emphasis mine)

and yet again,

“...You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives...”

James 4:2b-3

I could continue quoting verses such as these virtually all day, but I think these few already offered will suffice to illustrate the point I wish to make. Simply put, there would be no sincerity in such a prayer as is suggested on your web-site, despite the best intentions of any non-believers who would be so moved as to participate in such a lame experiment. There is also the matter of what is being asked for, and that subject we will deal with in the pages to follow. On the other hand, however, should a non-believer find him/herself moved to seek out the God of Creation in a truly searching, and respectful and heartfelt manner, then God will certainly hear a prayer of that nature. For He also said:

“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.”

John 6:37 (Emphasis mine)

TO BE CONTINUED...

[1] A much more comprehensive explanation for your usage of the word “contradiction” may be obtained by following the hyper-link attached to the word as it appears on your page.

[2] “Praying In The Spirit”

[3] “The Throne of Grace”

[4] “Prayer”, John Bunyan, Puritan Paperbacks, Banner of Truth Trust, 1965, pp.13-22

[5] “Gage Canadian Dictionary”, Gage Learning Corp., 1983, p.1047

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:9-15

2012-08-11T00:17:00.000-07:00

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:9-15

On the introductory page of your web-site you make the following statements. There are no qualifiers such as “In my opinion...” or, “I have heard it said....”. Rather, that which is offered is stated as fact.

"Billions of people attend millions of churches around the world to worship God.

Yet the God they worship is completely imaginary. Their belief represents a delusion.

It is easy to prove that God is imaginary. Start at the beginning...."

You then go on to offer 50 "proofs" that God does not exist. There is very little, if anything, original in what you offer; the same old arguments repeated yet again, as if by repetition they might somehow be endowed with an aura of truth. Unfortunately for you, this is not the case. Faulty reasoning will never successfully masquerade as truth so long as there are people willing to take the time to sincerely, and diligently, weigh the merits of the argument.

What I propose to do on the pages that follow is to take each one of the 50 arguments you offer on the web-site in question, and subject it to the critical analysis that it most certainly deserves. At this point, you should note that I myself am merely a layman, and not a trained theologian. In the end, this, I believe, works in my favor. After all, should I, an average man, be in any way successful at what I have set out to do, then will it not also be needful for any who read my rebuttals, to consider how much stronger an argument could be offered up by one who has been truly, and thoroughly trained in the art of Apologetics? In any case, just before we start looking at the 50 “proofs” offered on your site, let’s take a second look at the included pre-amble.

I have no real problem with the opening phrase regarding the number of people who attend church (billions?), although I admit to at least a little curiosity about whence the data for the statement was derived. My own guess would place the actual number at closer to 1,000,000,000, though as I’ve just said, that’s only a guess, and no more substantiated than your flat statement of supposed fact. In any event, as I have already said, I really have no problem with the statement itself, since it basically supports a “believer’s” point of view that far from being alone in his search for God, he is rather, just one of a multitude of others similarly engaged, either independently, or as part of a group of like-minded people.

Regarding the second portion of the opening statement, I do indeed take exception. You state unequivocally: “Yet the God they worship is completely imaginary. Their belief represents a delusion. (Emphasis mine.)” Upon reading the phrase “completely imaginary” my first instinct is to shout out “How do you know this? On what evidence is this claim based?”, but of course you would simply point to the 50 “proofs” that make up the substance of your site. That is why we, in just a little while, will begin to address each of those “proofs” individually.

As for the statement about all believers being “delusional”, let me say this. A delusion is basically a “false notion or belief”[1]. Before you can label a person as delusional, however, you must first prove that what that person has chosen to believe, is in fact, false. Otherwise, you, in all fairness, can only group the individual among those persons who hold an opinion on whatever the particular subject may be; an opinion that is at variance to what is believed by the one who is doing the labeling.

A further definition, from a more specifically psychiatric point-of-view, will help to narrow the meaning of this word even more. A delusion is, “a fixed belief maintained in spite of all evidence from one’s own senses and the objective world that the belief is false.[2]” Since no one can state without a doubt what my senses are telling me, and since, I believe, it sometimes takes the use of more than the physical senses to interpret interaction with God, who Himself is not limited to the physical realm, one should be very careful about their use of the word “delusional” in describing another who is believing of something whose reality he identifies by his own senses. Added to this is the imperative that proof must be provided to a person showing the falsity of said beliefs. Only if the proofs are offered to, and then rejected by, the individual in question, can the charge of “delusional” even begin to have a basis in reality.

Finally, before we leave this particular point, let me mention one or two additional things regarding the definition of the word “delusion”; after which, we will move on to the question and answer with which you conclude your opening argument. Consider if you will, this entry on the subject, from Wikipedia:

“Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his 1913 book General Psychopathology.^[2] These criteria are:

certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)^[3]

Furthermore, when a false belief involves a value judgment, it is only considered as a delusion if it is so extreme that it cannot be or ever can be proven true (example: a man claims that he flew into the sun and flew back home. This would be considered a delusion). ^[4]

Now, my Christian beliefs, in many, but not all ways, meet the criteria of “certainty”. However, they do fail to meet the next two conditions laid out by Dr.Jaspers. What I believe about God is not “incorrigible”, but is in fact, quite fluid, and always changing. As I learn more and more everyday through that which I receive spiritually, as well as that which is gleaned from personal study and outside input, my understanding evolves, and matures; I “grow” in Christ. Show me substantiated evidence of whatever you will, and if acceptance of that which you show me warrants a modification in the things which I currently believe, then I will in fact, most likely comply, and suitably modify at least that portion of my spiritual beliefs that are affected by the new (and proven) information.

As for the last part of the above definition, I suggest that my spiritual beliefs do indeed involve “value judgements”, and I further suggest that not only myself, but, according to your own web-site “God Is Imaginary”, billions of others also believe these things (religious concepts) to be true, so in the end, we also fail to meet the third criteria regarding “falsity of content”. For as I mentioned earlier, if we, as believers, are unable to provide concrete evidence for matters of faith as being the absolute truth, neither can you, as an unbeliever, provide concrete evidence confirming that that which believers believe is definitely untrue, or false. Therefore, the belief I cling to can neither be proven true nor false, and I can’t be reasonably accused of being “delusional” at least until such time as you can support your argument with the same solid evidence that you claim I lack in support of my views. Until such time arrives as you can provide the necessary proof to the contrary, I have the agreement of a billion or more individuals that much, if not all, of the things I believe, are in fact true. I trust you’ll forgive me if I choose to believe the opinion of “billions” as opposed to the unsubstantiated claim of one individual. I believe it was a singer named Meatloaf who made the term “2 out of 3 ain’t bad” so popular a number of years ago.

There are also two other points, in addition to my earlier comments regarding my belief in God, that must be considered before we move on any further; points that also pertain to the methods I will employ in my rebuttal of your claims. The first one, quite simply put, is that no one can truly instruct another on “how they must pray”. There can be no “right” way to pray since a prayer is basically a conversation with God, and each individual must pray in the manner that he/she deems appropriate, or feels moved to. Some people pray very casually, as though they were speaking to one of their closest friends and this is fine since God’s stated desire is to have fellowship with those He has created. On the other hand, some people pray in a very formal, even ritualistic, manner, and this type of prayer may be justified owing to the greatness and majesty of the One we pray to. No one can state that either method is “wrong” precisely because prayer is such a personal and intimate experience.

The second point adds some detail to another one of my earlier comments, specifically that everything I shall include here will be coming from the perspective of a Christian believer, since that is what I am. Furthermore, since you, on your website, have chosen to question so extensively the Christian Bible, I believe it is only a Christian believer that can in fact adequately answer your arguments. I would like to say, however, that even as a Christian believer, I am still first, and foremost, a “seeker of God”. As I mentioned earlier, this means my views on God are still developing, and as such, I do not in any way discount the views of others whose beliefs might differ from my own, but accept that our opinions are simply at variance with one another. Many of the things I have come to believe, I believe by faith, and lacking concrete proof of said beliefs, I accept that the time may come when one or more of those views may be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to be wrong. I trust this in no way implies that I lack faith, but only speaks of my acceptance that a time might arrive when I have it proven to me that my faith was misplaced in a certain matter.

So far, I am happy to say, no such time has arrived, at least not concerning any of my central beliefs.

With that being said, however, there still remains several “prerequisites”, if you will, that must be met before any prayer can produce the “effectiveness” that we all desire regarding the prayers we offer. In that which follows, it is these prerequisites that I am alluding to, and not the manner in which the prayer is prayed. I will support my belief in the existence of the stipulations in question with at least some of the Scriptures in which they are discussed.

So now let us consider the question and answer with which you bolster your opening argument for Proof #1. I’m taking it before going on to the details of the “proofs” of your position themselves (slightly out of the order which you used) simply because they are so silly that they don’t even serve a purpose other than to highlight the overblown sense of certainty of which you are so obviously possessed.

You ask, “Will anything happen?” (regarding a prayer you have suggested that people use as a means of proving God’s non-existence) and then reply to your own question with the flat-out statement, “No, of course not.” I will ask you a question in turn, “Are you omniscient?” If not, how can you possibly state that nothing will, or has, happened (as a result of the prayer in question)? Any number of things might possibly have happened, anywhere, that you are simply not aware of. Is it not enough that in your arrogance you ask the Creator of the Universe to perform for you like a trained puppy dog? Must he also keep you informed as to every move He makes? I think its quite possible that you have mixed up the differences between the Creator, and the creatures which He created. At any rate, I see no reason to spend any more time on this particular matter, so let us move on to the “proofs”.

[1] “Gage Canadian Dictionary”, Gage Learning Corp., 1983, p.313

[2] “Gage Canadian Dictionary”, Gage Learning Corp., 1983, p.313

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:1-8

2012-08-10T23:37:00.000-07:00

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:1-8

Introduction

A while back I received an e-mail which included a link to a web-page entitled “God Is Imaginary”. The sender of the e-mail (my brother) thought I “might find the site interesting”, and if truth be told, I did. At first I was less than impressed, however, with the author’s various arguments, and was even ready to dismiss the entire thing as just another example of a so-called atheist trying to sound intelligent about something of which he actually knew very little, or nothing. That opinion of mine has not changed, but after a more in-depth perusal of the web-site I became convinced that there were other reasons, good reasons, to pursue this matter at least a little further. Frankly, I just figured it was about time that someone, anyone, answer these charges yet again. It just wouldn’t do to have our continued silence on these matters interpreted as acquiescence.

Any person of faith who is worth his salt knows how ridiculous these so-called “proofs” appear to anyone who knows anything about the subject, but there are those who have just begun to seek after enlightenment, or understanding, and it is mainly for those souls that I have decided to make this reply. If even one newcomer to the journey of faith should find themselves helped in any way by the words upon these pages which follow, then the entire process will have been worthwhile. Before confronting such a large body of vitriolic views, however, there is something that must be said about the manner which I shall employ in performing the task that lays before me.

I am a Christian, and as such, all that follows will necessarily be influenced by at least a couple of core beliefs upon which my very identity is grounded, and which, by my very (new) nature, I could never deny. For instance, I have no doubt whatsoever that a supreme Being exists; I refer to that entity as "God". This belief in no way hinders, and certainly does not disqualify, anything I may say regarding the various subjects that are yet to follow. As much as I cannot show empirical evidence which supports my view, by that same amount is my opponent unable to show empirical evidence that proves the non-existence of such a Supreme Being. Therefore, we are at best reduced to a situation where we are arguing opposing points of view, or opinion. I suggest, however, that the basis upon which my belief is grounded, is a sound one that can much better be understood than my opponents beliefs, which actually require much greater faith than anything demanded of those of us in the Christian religion.

One need only look around their own environment to see that in the scope, and at the scale, of this world we live in, variation in quality is everywhere. One man builds a building, another man builds a better one. One man runs faster than any other man in the world, until another man claims the title from him. An artist creates a piece of work, but there is always the work of a Michelangelo to fail in comparison to. The mouse hunts for his food, a better hunter hunts the mouse, and is himself hunted by yet a better hunter. Prodigies are everywhere, and by their very nature are "superior" to others in their particular area of expertise. It takes very little faith to believe in that which is so evident in our day-to-day surroundings.

At a larger scale, it takes only a little more faith (and perhaps some "natural" human biases) to see what we would call the differences in quality of the various countries scattered throughout this world. If I were to ask you which of the countries upon this planet you would most like to live in, it seems quite reasonable to me that your answer would be based largely upon which of those countries you believed to be the "best"; which of those countries do you believe to be the "greatest". Forms of government work exactly the same way; is there anyone who doesn't believe one type of government is better than another? If not, why did so many people, on all sides, bother to die in every war ever fought?

Speaking of war, what is the difference between a "civil disturbance" or a "full-blown revolution"? Is it not quite often determined as much by its "magnitude" as by anything else? And is there anyone who will deny the difference of quality between a fresh recruit and a Navy Seal?

It should also be noted that size is not always going to be counted as "better". But still, through whatever means is used, in whatever exists within this world, the concept of "better" will always need to be determined. A brief example might even more clearly explain my views on this.

As a Christian, I am called upon, and even commanded to, "love my neighbor as I love myself". When I was still young in the faith, I wondered exactly what this meant (if you think its obvious, try giving it some serious thought). How exactly does one "love him/herself"? After considering the matter for some time it occurred to me that loving myself, or anyone else for that matter, was very closely "related" at least, to the "satisfying of desire". If you love someone, you will usually recognize what things that person desires from life, and as an expression of your love, you will seek to satisfy those desires if you can. This certainly does not have to include only material things, though at times it will, but it may also be comprised of moral or spiritual desires, certainly affection and understanding, and also hopes and dreams of better things yet to come. It is herein that I finally arrived at what I now believe to be the crux of the matter. "Everyone desires something just a little better than what they already have. Thus, in order to love someone as I love myself, I need only to seek for that person, something which is, in some substantial way, better than that which they already possess." This can be manifested in a myriad of ways.

Consider a little child walking down the street, holding the mother or father's hand, and longing for the day when he/she will be able to take that walk alone. But he/she doesn't make such a major transition in one huge jump. There are many stages in the process, such as foregoing the sense of security that is contained in the simple act of hand-holding itself. The child would be happy to walk beside mom or dad, but do they have to hold his/her hand so that everyone they encounter will see just what a little baby they are? And next comes the issue of "proximity"; they are happy to walk on their own, as long as the parent is still in sight. And on and on it goes. But accomplishing each of those steps, or stages, at least in the heart of that child, brings with it a certain amount of happiness, as well as a sense of "worth" and "accomplishment". With each step they obtain something that they consider to be "better" than what they already had. When the parent finds the child at any given stage in this process, and if they want to express their love, they might allow the child to move on to the next step, satisfying the little one's desire for progress (timing is also part of the way we express that love, but it still remains, the child will feel the love much more clearly when he/she receives that which is just a little better in their eyes than what they previously possessed).

What about that same child, when he/she reaches driving age? Their first desire is probably not even for a car, but rather, a driver's license. It is only after having obtained that license that the desire becomes one of wanting a car. It doesn't have to be a great car, any old beater will do, but their entire life will come to an abrupt end if they can't have a vehicle of their own. At least, to hear them say it. So they get a beater at the used-car lot, and very soon their desire becomes the "need" for a car that looks a little better, or burns a little less oil, or holds more people, or whatever. But through all of this, one thing remains the same. Everybody desires something just a little better than what they already have. It is also for this very reason that not many men are ever completely satisfied with their lot in life, for no matter how much they acquire, or accomplish, there will always remain that universal longing for something even better.

In regard to the larger things in this universe, can it not be said that even though a new star is discovered, it would be better to discover a star that was populated, or at least able to be populated, and would it not be better still to discover a habitable planet within the reach of man? So you can clearly see that the desire for something better is universal, not only among men, but in all of the nature that surrounds us. This brings us full circle back to why I believe in God, the Supreme Being.

After all, our very desire for something better is so ingrained within all of us, that it speaks quite loudly as proof, that the variations in quality which I mentioned earlier, do in fact exist. And if everything can be improved upon, and everything falls short of matching the quality of the next thing above it, it should not take a major leap of faith to humble ourselves through the acceptance that there is something "better" than ourselves. Whatever that might be, it should be remembered that there is also something better than that, until there isn't, at which point, you have discovered God...or have you? Just use your imagination to climb the ladder of improvement by adding new, or superior qualities, to each and every stage that you can think of, and then when you have reached the limit of your imagination, remember these words from the Bible:

"Great is the Lord and most worthy of praise;

His greatness no one can fathom."

Psalm 145:3 (Emphasis mine.)

So what the Holy Word is telling us is that it doesn't matter how great our imagination is, God is greater still. I would suggest that whatever limitations are burdening your understanding of greatness, it is at that point, where you can conceive of nothing greater, that your "God" in fact resides. For God is another name for the Supreme Being, and if you cannot think of anything greater than that which you have already thought of, then you have defined your concept of the Supreme Being, and you have also defined the God you believe in. And this is why I say that being an atheist requires more faith than believing in God. We have already seen that quality is governed by variation, and if you truly believe there is nothing greater than yourself, then you have just personally claimed to be the Supreme Being, since you believe there is nothing better; you have claimed to be God. And if you do accept that there are variations in quality, then when you reach the apex of those variations, that final variation is your God. You may ask me a million times to believe that you (or each and every one of us) is God, but to do so, I would need more than a million times the amount of faith I have. That kind of god will always be far too small for me.

Also, the entire argument of not believing in anything is simply ridiculous. Your beliefs may be quite small, or naive, but nonetheless, they are beliefs. Each day when you get up, you believe there will be enough air to breath, and sufficient gravity to keep you earthbound. You believe you can deal with your hunger by eating something, and your thirst by having a drink. Everybody believes in something, some beliefs are simply more substantial than others.

So why is it that I say "atheists" are trying to sound intelligent about something of which they know very little, or nothing? To answer that question, I have to remind you that my opponent has voiced many of his opinions that are obviously grounded in his belief that there is no God, or at best, that God is a mythological Being that can, or has already been, "proven" to not exist. I can only answer him with my own opinions which are grounded in my Christian belief that God certainly does exist, and this I believe has been proven by His revelation of Himself which is contained in the Holy Scriptures, the entire creation of which we are part, and in each and every individual among us who has not yet exercised the Free Will they were gifted with to decide to reject those very same revelations. In rejecting God's offer to come to Him, the individual takes unto himself the character of an unbeliever, and this is what the Bible has to say about that:

“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

1 Corinthians 2:14 (Emphasis mine.)

So in the end, the point of everything I have just said is really quite a simple one. If you start with an average man, and seek out a man that is better in some way, then continue repeating the process an undetermined amount of times, when you can no longer think of any way to improve upon the latest variation, then you will have defined your concept of the Supreme Being, and that is where you will find the God which you can claim to believe in.

For myself, I believe in the God of the Bible, and as such, everything I say which follows will be grounded upon that belief. It should go without saying that whenever I support a particular argument by referencing the Bible, it is because I believe in the "infallibility" of the Holy Word. If you are tempted to reject anything I say according to that fashion, please be reminded that I have given heed to everything that was included in the web-page in question, even though all of those arguments are based on the secular beliefs of the web-site's author(s).

So with all that being said, let me now direct my comments explicitly to the author(s) of the web page entitled "God Is Imaginary".

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence

MUSINGS ON IRAQ: U.S. Boots On The Ground In Iraq, Advisers Deployed To Anbar And Diyala

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 2:125-126

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 2:120-125

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:115-120

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 2:112-115

Erroneous Proof #2

Statistically Analyze Prayer

Proof:[1]

- Evidence that establishes the truth, or validity of something[2]

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:109-112

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:105-109

An Interlude, and Explanation of Process

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:99-104

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:95-99

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:89-94

John 14:12-14

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:84-89

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:80-84

Mark 11:24

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:77-80

Matthew 21:21

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:70-76

Matthew 17:20

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:66-71

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:58-65

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:54-58

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:47-53

The Non-Supporting Scriptures

Matthew 7:7

50 Erroneus Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:43-47

A Couple Thoughts On Prayer

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:39-43

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:29-38

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:22-28

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:16-22

(Erroneous) Proof #1

Try Praying

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:9-15

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:1-8

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:1-8

Introduction