A Challenge For Atheists

Christians are often accused of being close-minded for not conforming to the naturalistic belief system which is so prevalent in the U.S. So for this little experiment, I would like to see if atheists practice the same open-mindedness they preach.

If you are an atheist, what I want to know is: If God did exist, what would it take to convince you? Give me a hypothetical example of evidence that you would not reject.

I'll be pleasantly surprised to receive any response to this query at all.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

P.S. - Mudskipper requested a prize for his latest comments on this post. I guess it's only fair! So, Mudskipper, here it is:

God is Not a Force of Nature - Why Evolutionists Don't Understand

Understandably, most atheists tend to take a very scientific approach to every issue they attempt to tackle. Whether it be deciding which medicines will treat a disease best, or which pair of socks will be least likely to get them funny looks in the workplace, atheists will almost always resort to conducting multiple trials and comparing the results, searching for consistency. There is, of course, nothing wrong with this approach and, in fact, it is often-times the best approach in a dilemma. The problem, however, manifests itself most clearly when this same logic is applied to the existence of God in relation to the personal accounts and experiences of theists. You see, while it is perfectly acceptable to test the existence of a natural force, such as gravity, by simply conducting trials and seeing if multiple trials yield consistent results, the same cannot be said for God. Why is this? Allow me to offer you a couple of hypothetical situations and perhaps you'll begin to understand:

---

Christian: "When I was 12 my grandmother was dying and I prayed to God to heal her, and, even though the doctor had said there was no hope, she was healed that same day. That's how I know God is real and that He hears my prayers."

Atheist: "Plenty of 12-year-old kids have prayed for God to heal their relatives before, and He didn't. Therefore, your 'evidence' isn't really evidence at all."

---

Christian: "After I became a Christian, God helped me to overcome my drug-addiction. I must have tried hundreds of times before, but I just couldn't do it. Only God could have done something like that."

Atheist: "Plenty of non-Christians have overcome drug-addictions, any psychiatrist can do what you claim your God did. Not to mention all the Christians who struggle with drug-addictions that they could never overcome - no matter how many times they prayed."

---

Notice how atheists often-times find themselves incapable of accepting a Christian's personal experiences as genuine simply because they can't reproduce the results multiple times. Now, I need to make a distinction, if God were simply a force of nature then such refutations would be quite impressive. However, if we apply the same arguments to the existence of an intelligent being, we realize that they are, of course, absurd. If someone were to say: "I know Matthew exists, because I ran into him at the mall once, and he bought me a milk-shake," would an acceptable refutation be: "That doesn't mean anything, you silly, irrational fool. If that were really true, then Matthew would buy everyone he ran into at the mall a milk-shake. Because, as you freely admit, he probably doesn't, I can only assume that your entire story is meaningless and you have no good reason to believe Matthew exists." Of course not, that would be ridiculous. While this logic applies well to the predictable forces of nature, which are assumed to respond in exactly the same way when introduced to the exact same circumstances multiple times, the same cannot be said for intelligent, decision-making entities.

So why does this issue come up so frequently? Ironically, it's our own fault. We as Christians will often try so hard to present an appealing argument for God's existence that we will subconsciously begin to treat Him more as a concept, idea, or natural force, than as the Omnipotent God of the universe who possesses both the ability and the right to make His own decisions based upon information which may, or may not, be available even to us. We paint an inaccurate picture, then complain of the unfortunate results.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

A Simple Faith Test

Do you have enough faith to be an atheist? Take this simple quiz and add up your score to find out:

1. (T/F) Matter can sponaneously arise from non-matter.

True: +1
False: +0

2. (T/F) Living matter can arise from non-living matter.

True: +1
False: +0

3. (T/F) Order can spontaneously (i.e. without assistance) arise from non-order.

True: +1
False: +0

4. (T/F) If the letters from the word "artichoke" are jumbled up every 30 seconds (forming gibberish such as cartohike, etc.), then, given enough time, the words "zebra," "apricot," and "fountain" will inevitably be formed eventually.

True: +1
False: +0

5. (T/F) It is possible to reach the end of an infinity.

True: +1
False: +0

Scoring:

5 = Hardened Atheistic Evolutionist
4 = Common Atheistic Evolutionist
3 = Agnostic
2 = Theistic Evolutionist
1 = (Unsure) Creationist
0 = (Confident) Creationist

In the Beginning...

Where did the universe come from? From a strictly analytical perspective, it would seem that there are only three options:

1. The universe found its beginning within itself (natural processes - i.e. created itself)

2. The universe found its beginning without itself (God - or other super-natural phenomenon [to be debated in a religious setting] taking place outside the universe)

3. The universe found its beginning neither within nor without itself (no beginning at all - i.e. always existed)

Now, let's examine these three possibilities in light of what we know from science:

1. The universe found its beginning within itself

This one, to the surprise of some, is actually rather ridiculous in light of our current scientific knowledge. (Note: Do NOT misinterpret this as a critique of the "Big Bang Theory," which never claims to explain the origin of the universe, only how the universe came upon its current arrangement.) One of the most basic laws of science is the Conservation of Matter, which tells us that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Since the laws of the universe make such a creative act impossible, no process within the universe could bring the universe into existence as in so doing the universe would violate its very own laws.

Conclusion: Self-Contradictory (The "natural processes" required are unnatural and impossible)

2. The universe found its beginning without itself

It is impossible to measure the feasibility of this option with science, as the natural/scientific laws of the universe would not (obviously) apply to super-natural events originating outside of the universe.

Conclusion: Plausible, but unprovable (not within the jurisdiction of science)

3. The universe found its beginning neither within nor without itself (no beginning)

This one gets a little tricky, not because the answer is unclear, but rather because the answer is rather difficult to explain. In essence, the answer is as follows: It is impossible to traverse an infinite period of time. You see, if the universe has no beginning, then we would never traverse a large enough space of time to reach the moment we are at now. While an infinity forward is plausible, to suggest the same in the opposite direction is simply impossible. In other words, time itself must have a beginning. You can't have matter before time, it is simply impossible.

Conclusion: Impossible

So here are the scores:

Option #1 - Self-Contradictory
Option #2 - Plausible
Option #3 - Impossible

Inside, outside, or neither? Those are the only options, there can be no middle-ground. While none of these options can be proven true by themselves, process of elimination provides us with only one possibility: Special Creation.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew