"I Don't Believe in God"

Haven't given up on you! Just been very very busy lately! The abortion situation didn't offend me in the least, it is just a question raised by my stepdad that I have always wondered about.

I can't lie, you are extremely good at what you do. I'm as stubborn and strong-willed as it gets, but you are really making all of my questions make sense. Thank you for that.

What church are you from again? I would really like to attend one of your services and speak with you.

And one final question, after reading the last post. You say you were once an agnostic. If you don't mind me asking, what made you believe? That seems to be the hardest part for me.

Oh, I'm so glad! Probably the most difficult things for a preacher - or really, for any Christian - is to see someone walk away; even though you know it's the person's choice, it still feels like you've failed them. There's always the "what ifs," and all. On the other hand, however, to read what I just read brings you to tears.

I thank you for the compliment, but it really has nothing to do with me. I just told you what I discovered. It wasn't too long ago that I had the same kinds of questions. And believe me, I'm just as stubborn and strong-willed. Just ask my friend and preacher when I converted, Mark Tabata. He was extremely patient with me, even though I said some pretty nasty stuff about Christianity from time to time.

My name is Steve Turner. I chose the username "Ekklesia," because that is the word we translate into English as "Church." It's the word Jesus used when He spoke of establishing it in Matt. 16:18. Anyway, we are the West Ripley Church of Christ. I'd love to see you here. We meet for Bible class on Sunday morning at 10 am, then worship at 10:45. We meet Sunday evening at 6pm, and then Wednesday Bible class is at 7pm. If you'd rather, however, my wife and I can meet with you anywhere anytime just to talk, or study the Bible together. It's all up to you. But given everything that goes on on the internet, I get it if you'd rather come to services first and make sure in public that I'm a real person.:)

As for me, yes, I was converted to Christianity just four years ago or so. Kinda hard to put an exact date. It happened slowly, over a period of time. When I say that I was converted 4 years ago, I mean that's when I really started to believe in what Christianity affirms - but I became a theist much earlier, and wasn't baptized until Spring of 2009 - so really, I've only been a Christian for about three years - I'll explain that some other time. Anyway, I was an astronomer. I was in college, trying to get a degree in astrophysics. I was teaching at an organization called the "Challenger Learning Center of Kentucky" in Hazard, KY. In the fall of 2005 I was arguing with some colleagues over the internet about the existence of God (I have no idea how we got on the topic), and I tried to use the principles of cause and effect to make a case against the existence of God. Long story short, I ended up convincing myself by means of that very argument that a singular, self-existing, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient entity must exist - i.e., God. Now, the concept was fascinating to me, but it meant little. Like Dr. Stephen Hawking has said, if God did exist, then he certainly doesn't think twice about us. I still believed Christians to be ignorant, arrogant, and generally foolish fanatics - as I've said on this forum earlier - if my reasoning were correct, then Christians are a setback to society - religion in general, in fact. It took me a couple of years to see that maybe I was being a little prejudiced. Later, in the summer of '07, after a conversation with my father (who is himself a preacher), I decided it was beneficial for me to go to church. I thought it might at least help me, morally. I still was a little afraid of Christians, but as my Dad told me, I shouldn't let the mistakes of others keep me from doing the right thing. So I went. I met Mark Tabata, and slowly over a little less than a year, he had convinced me that I may be wrong about a few things. Over the course of a year of studying and battling it out with Mark, I made an incredible discovery that made me stop everything, and changed everything - showed me that there's really something to this stuff. We'll study that sometime soon, should you choose to continue studying, but I don't want to spoil anything for you by understating the case. But after making that discovery, I began believing - really believing that God is, that the Bible is His Word, and that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God.

Anyway, my wife, Wendi, wouldn’t come with me to church for about a year. In fact, she was jealous of Mark – she was a little weirded out by his personality, but she was mainly just mad that I was spending so much time with him doing “church stuff.” But, in fall of 2008, she was baptized – even before I was! I was then baptized that Spring. I quit college and my job, and went to preaching school that summer – Now, there’s quite a bit more to that story than that, that’s just the nutshell. I didn’t drop everything out of some fanciful or emotional outburst to preach. It took me a little less than a year to even accept the idea. But anyway, there it is.

Now, to answer your question without spoiling it too much, over a period of about three years, it was mainly two arguments that made me believe, with many other arguments and facts that confirmed the belief that have accumulated in between, and have continued to accumulate to this day – the first was something called the Cosmological argument – an argument for the existence of God: of which my argument from cause and effect was a primitive version. The second was the argument from the concept of prophecy – specifically Messianic prophecy – an argument for both the inspiration of the Bible and for the deity of Christ. But we’ll get to that later.
Anyway, let me know if you’d like to meet. Otherwise, I’ll be looking for you sometime here at the church building! Oh, I almost forgot - we are actually just about a quarter mile beyond the I-77 on the main road out of town. We’re on the left, just before the other church (I think it might be a Baptist church or something – not sure). Anyway, I look forward to meeting you!

Our address is 1527 Ripley Rd, if you've got GPS.

Ekklesia wrote:

“More consequences for thought and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from answering any other question.”-Mortimer Adler
Regardless of who you are, I can guarantee you one thing: as you reading these articles, you stand in one of three positions.
1. You believe in God (Theism)
2. You don’t know whether or not God exists, and may not care (Agnosticism)
3. You don’t believe in God.(Atheism)
Your perspective is dependent on this belief as its core, which affects your thoughts, which in turn affects your decision processes. More so than any other question, who you are is dependent on your answer to this question.
You got there by your own means, and for your own reasons. Before I go any further with this, however, let me make one thing clear. This article is not meant to attack you or your beliefs. I am simply offering this for your consideration: all I ask is that you look at it with an open mind, and contemplate on your perspective thoroughly. Examine yourself meticulously, and your own reasoning strictly.
What is a theist? Essentially, it is one who believes in God. Some believe because they have seen enough evidence to convince them of this. Some believe because they believe they have experienced a supernatural event that must have come from God. Some believe simply because their parents believed, and their parents before them. Whatever the reason, they believe.
“Don’t know, don’t care”. I remember in Sunday school, my teacher explained agnosticism to me in this way. I was twelve. Little did I realize at the time, but it would not be long before I myself took this position. I don’t think that it was so much that I didn’t know as it was that I just didn’t care. Funny how apathy can settle in so easily. What a dangerous state of mind to be in: to be apathetic. In apathy, there is no growth, no trial, no life; only atrophy. But I’m not sure that my Sunday school teacher was completely correct in his curious definition. Sometimes we care so much about not knowing, that we hide from knowledge. Think about it: If there isn’t a God, nothing changes. I can continue in my happy little world without having to worry about anything too…religious, shall we say? However, if there is a God, everything changes. People don’t like change. We tend to fear it, especially when the change is so monumental. Therefore, we hide from knowledge, wanting not to be confused by the facts.
There are two categories of agnosticism: The first we’ve already discussed. That is, the person who either doesn’t care or doesn’t want to know. Once you can break this fear or apathy, and open yourself up to the possibilities, you may decide that God does exist. You simply need to know the facts at that point. The difficult part is getting past the fear or apathy. This takes time, and a lot of work.
The second category is often referred to as complete agnosticism. Basically, it means that nothing is absolutely true. There is no right or wrong, only different perspectives; an intriguing notion in the way of philosophy. The problem is that the person who believes this is absolutely certain that this is true. I challenge anyone to debate this with a mathematician or a physicist. We know that perspective plays a role in the universe: quite a big one. Relativity shows, however, that perspective is assessable, and certainly that it can be compensated for.

why should anyone believe in god, can you see him? hear him? touch him? why believe in some book written how long ago and by whom? and how many times has it been translated and by whom? People choose to only believe the parts of the bible they like, or want to. what a joke. any most so called christians are the most hypocritical people on the face of the earth

Well, non believer;

Before we begin, may I ask (and I hope you don't take the question the wrong way): are you seriously asking, or are you just trying to pick a fight? I will attempt to answer your questions to the best of my ability. However, if it is a pointless quarrel you're after, you'd best find it elsewhere.

Let me ask you: have you seen your brain? Have you audibly heard it? Have you touched it? I will add, have you tasted it? Have you smelled it? Then by your own reasoning, you must have no brain either.

Forgive the jest, my friend: I mean no disrespect, but you see my point. Empirical evidence is not the only valid form of evidence. There's a reason why you haven't seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled God - why in all the centuries of looking through telescopes and microscopes nobody has been able to point and say, "there He is!" According to the Bible, God is Spirit (John 4:24). He is not physical. Empirical evidence is limited to physical things - therefore, God's presence does not effect the senses, with the exception of several times in history when He has chosen to reveal Himself in a very physical way - the Shekinah, for example (Ezekiel 10). The lack of empirical evidence, however, does not indicate a lack of evidence at all. As I understand it, the greatest source of evidence is the Bible itself - which claims to be His direct communication with mankind via inspiration. The question is, is this claim true? You tell me - how would you test this claim? What method would you use, and let's see if we can use it to test the Bible's inspiration. You game?

As to the other questions, we'll try to answer them as we come to an answer to these. I think you'll find that some of them will be answered by what we find here - save the last question:

Yes, I would agree with both of your last two statements entirely. People do often choose only to believe the parts of the Bible they like, or want to - and yes, that makes them hypocrites. And if it is the case that God holds men accountable to His Word (Rev. 20:12), then they will be held accountable to their deeds - just as you and I will. Yes, as a Christian, I too will be judged by how I hold God's Word, for judgment will begin within His Church (1 Pet. 4:17). So, that bears the question: is what I'm saying true or false? I am irrelevant to the equation from your perspective. If, when we have examined what I claimed to be true, you find that what I say is true, then you are responsible to that truth. I am then judged by you to be truthful, and the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), and the Bible is the Word of God - and you will be held accountable to that truth. If, however, what I say is judged false - then I am found to be a liar, and you shouldn't believe anything I say. I therefore, am irrelevant. The question is, is the Bible true?

What I am saying is this: Christians are irrelevant to the question. What they do and who they are is simply that: irrelevant. Therefore, you can't judge Christianity based on hypocrites. The very term itself is defined as someone who is an actor - playing the role of being something they are not. Therefore, even what you have described is not the actions of a Christian, but that of a hypocrite - an actor trying to imitate Christianity.

If you wish to judge me, then judge me by what I say, not by what hypocrites do. If you are trying to judge me, then to judge fairly, you are faced with a simple question: Is what I say true? Again, if it is, then I am a real Christian: no imitation, no corruption in truth - the real deal. If what I say is not true, then I am a liar - a hypocrite: someone who tries to imitate a Christian. The same goes for the Church. If you are going to judge a church (and I set forth the case that you ought to judge both in this way), then you must judge in this way: is what the church teaches true or false? If what they say (or, teach) is true, then you have found the real Church. If what they say is false, then they are not the church, but something false - an imitation: a human institution.

So, what do you say? Will you examine this with me - or will you judge falsely?

There is nothing more worse than life itself . So yea Hell don't have Shit on life because it has been there done that ; )

Ekklesia wrote:

Well, non believer;
Before we begin, may I ask (and I hope you don't take the question the wrong way): are you seriously asking, or are you just trying to pick a fight? I will attempt to answer your questions to the best of my ability. However, if it is a pointless quarrel you're after, you'd best find it elsewhere.
Let me ask you: have you seen your brain? Have you audibly heard it? Have you touched it? I will add, have you tasted it? Have you smelled it? Then by your own reasoning, you must have no brain either.
Forgive the jest, my friend: I mean no disrespect, but you see my point. Empirical evidence is not the only valid form of evidence. There's a reason why you haven't seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled God - why in all the centuries of looking through telescopes and microscopes nobody has been able to point and say, "there He is!" According to the Bible, God is Spirit (John 4:24). He is not physical. Empirical evidence is limited to physical things - therefore, God's presence does not effect the senses, with the exception of several times in history when He has chosen to reveal Himself in a very physical way - the Shekinah, for example (Ezekiel 10). The lack of empirical evidence, however, does not indicate a lack of evidence at all. As I understand it, the greatest source of evidence is the Bible itself - which claims to be His direct communication with mankind via inspiration. The question is, is this claim true? You tell me - how would you test this claim? What method would you use, and let's see if we can use it to test the Bible's inspiration. You game?
As to the other questions, we'll try to answer them as we come to an answer to these. I think you'll find that some of them will be answered by what we find here - save the last question:
Yes, I would agree with both of your last two statements entirely. People do often choose only to believe the parts of the Bible they like, or want to - and yes, that makes them hypocrites. And if it is the case that God holds men accountable to His Word (Rev. 20:12), then they will be held accountable to their deeds - just as you and I will. Yes, as a Christian, I too will be judged by how I hold God's Word, for judgment will begin within His Church (1 Pet. 4:17). So, that bears the question: is what I'm saying true or false? I am irrelevant to the equation from your perspective. If, when we have examined what I claimed to be true, you find that what I say is true, then you are responsible to that truth. I am then judged by you to be truthful, and the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), and the Bible is the Word of God - and you will be held accountable to that truth. If, however, what I say is judged false - then I am found to be a liar, and you shouldn't believe anything I say. I therefore, am irrelevant. The question is, is the Bible true?
What I am saying is this: Christians are irrelevant to the question. What they do and who they are is simply that: irrelevant. Therefore, you can't judge Christianity based on hypocrites. The very term itself is defined as someone who is an actor - playing the role of being something they are not. Therefore, even what you have described is not the actions of a Christian, but that of a hypocrite - an actor trying to imitate Christianity.

people have be biopsied, there is proof we have brains, they have been seen, touched and even tasted by some, what of your god?

do you believe the whole bible in it's entirety?

non believer wrote:

<quoted text>
people have be biopsied, there is proof we have brains, they have been seen, touched and even tasted by some, what of your god?

I didn't say that other people don't have brains: I asked if you'd seen, tasted, touched, smelled, or heard your brain. Have you done a biopsy of YOUR brain? Until you do you, you have no evidence of it, according to your reasoning. Let's use another example. What about an idea? You can't see an idea. An idea makes no audible sound. It can't be tasted, touched or felt. Again, by your own reasoning, it doesn't exist - something that is contrary to the facts. We know they exist. We can communicate them. We understand them. You could say the same for the mind, etc. Empirical evidence is not the only kind of valid evidence. Your argument is unsound.

non believer wrote:

do you believe the whole bible in it's entirety?

Yes, absolutely - and I can prove it. The question that would naturally follow is, how? By testing it. How would YOU go about testing it?

Tell you what - I'll save us both some time here. What you'll undoubtedly reply is that if other biopsies show that humans in general have brains, then it would only be logical that you also have a brain. Then I would say that you are correct, and that you have just twice acknowledged that there are other forms of evidence besides the empirical: first, a biopsy itself is a historical record of biopsy - it is historical evidence. Then, by using the argument that since the evidence shows that all humans have brains, and you are a human, then you too must have a brain, you are acknowledging syllogistic argumentation for evidence.

Now, I may not be able to produce empirical evidence of God's existence, but I can produce various other forms of objective evidence, form logical syllogisms, and validly and soundly come to the conclusion that God must therefore exist, that the Bible is His inspired Word, and that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. So again, I ask: are you game?

Ekklesia wrote:

Tell you what - I'll save us both some time here. What you'll undoubtedly reply is that if other biopsies show that humans in general have brains, then it would only be logical that you also have a brain. Then I would say that you are correct, and that you have just twice acknowledged that there are other forms of evidence besides the empirical: first, a biopsy itself is a historical record of biopsy - it is historical evidence. Then, by using the argument that since the evidence shows that all humans have brains, and you are a human, then you too must have a brain, you are acknowledging syllogistic argumentation for evidence.
Now, I may not be able to produce empirical evidence of God's existence, but I can produce various other forms of objective evidence, form logical syllogisms, and validly and soundly come to the conclusion that God must therefore exist, that the Bible is His inspired Word, and that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. So again, I ask: are you game?

Are you male of female? I'm guessing male

Yes, I'm a male. I've already given my name, and the fact that I'm a preacher. What has my gender to do with anything?

Are you willing to investigate the case with me, or not? As I've already said, I won't participate in an aimless bickering match.

How would we investigate this? and your gender plays a big role. the bible is allegedly written by men, and is bigoted toward women, in my opinion. but I am open to your investigation

I see. And how is it bigoted toward women? In what you do you think it is?

You know what, never mind. It's clear that that statement was a diversion - you couldn't argue with my logic, and so diverted with an attempt at a personal attack - an argument ad hominem. Nice try, but I think I'll ignore it.

In any case, let's see: I have made the claim that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Here we have something tangible with a claim to an intangible source, which can easily be tested as being either true or false - does it not seem logical to begin there? Let us then present the first, most fundamental argument in this discussion:

1) If the Bible proves to be true in that it is the inspired Word of God, then it must also be the case that God exists, and that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
2) The Bible is true in that it is the inspired Word of God.
3) Therefore, it must also be the case that Gods exists, and that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Now, the reason I this argument is valid is, of course first of all because it’s in proper format. More importantly, however, it is valid because if it is the case that the Bible is the Word of God, then God must be its source: and therefore, must exist. The Bible, however, also makes the claim of both His existence and several particular characteristics of nature. Furthermore, it also claims the identity of Jesus as being the Christ, the Son of God. Now, if you so choose to continue this discussion long enough, then we will also look at the arguments which singularly prove both the existence of God, and the deity of Christ, but I thought this to be the best place to begin.

Having produced this argument let us then press on to the Basic Argument for the Inspiration of the Bible. It will serve as collective for several minor arguments which will serve to prove the Basic Argument’s case. What I mean is this: the Basic Argument will prove the case for the inspiration of the Bible by covering the broad subject as a whole. It will be proven by several smaller arguments which will prove more specific details which prove the inerrancy, singular source, and ultimately, the divine origin of the Bible. Together, these minor arguments will prove the Basic Argument. Shall we begin with the Basic Argument?

1) If it is the case that the Bible possesses property A, property B, property C ... property Z (where the total situation involved in having such properties makes it clear that the Bible is beyond mere human production) then the Bible is the word of God.

2) It is the case that the Bible possesses property A, property B, property C ... property Z.

3) Conclusion: Therefore the Bible is the word of God.
In this argument, when I refer to property A, property B, property C, etc., I mean for these designations to stand for affirmative propositions regarding some fact regarding the Bible as given in the subsequent minor arguments. It is clear that the argument is valid in form (it is a hypothetical syllogism in which the antecedent of the major premise is affirmed). Thus the only way the argument could be shown to be unsound (that is, that the truthfulness of the conclusion does not follow from the premises) would be to show that at least one of the premises is false.
Therefore, non believer, your task as someone who denies this is to prove that the minor premise is false – that is, that even one of the minor arguments which we will examine is unsound. To do that, you must prove the minor premises of any one of them to be false by means of sufficient evidence which debunks it. My job as one who affirms these arguments is to prove, with sufficient evidence, each one of the minor premises. So, are you up to the investigation? If so, we will begin with property A.