June 14, 2011

Concluding the Debate with KJR at Atheist Central

I have been going at it back and forth with someone over at Ray Comfort's blog, Atheist Central, about the existence of God, etc. Because the comment box was getting too thin over there, I decided to post here his response to some things I told him, and my answer to it. This is not an attempt to publicly make KJR look bad, but simply to answer him thoughtfully, as the Bible tells me I should (1 Peter 3:15).

We eventually started to discuss some presuppositions. KJR's words are italicized and my answers are given below them...

"You quote the Bible at me like it has some value."

Yes. I believe the Bible has authority over both of us, so naturally I quote it to you. If the Bible is in fact true, then your dismissal of it beforehand does nothing to diminish its authority from God.

"That's step #3. Lets start by showing that God exists. Then showing that the Bible actually his work. Then I'll believe it, and you can quote it."

Why should I follow your procedure in this matter? Why should my quoting of Scripture depend on your acceptance of it? Biology teachers don't quote a biology textbook only after every student accepts that it's reliable. If God exists and the Bible is His Word, it doesn't depend on whether you agree or not. The problem is with your unbelief, not the proof. I have already demonstrated to you that God exists, but you ignored my arguments. Why should I expect you to behave differently with additional proofs? God exists because to deny Him cuts the rug out from under your ability to reason, talk, or even do science.

"Claiming theuniverse is a creation isn't proof, or even evidence. The Bible is just one of hundreds of creation stories. And it doesn't even get through the first chapter without failing to fit observable reality."

To me, as a Christian who accepts the divine authority of the Bible, creation is self-evident proof both of being created and the existence of the Creator. The reason you don't accept it as such is because you are committed to autonomy. You don't believe, so you dismiss any tangible evidence in favor of belief. Even if I had shown you observable physical evidence for the existence of God, would that not in itself be proof from creation? It would be indeed. But as an atheist, you have not observed all the evidence in the universe to know for sure whether there is not more evidence out there for or against the existence of God. You would have to have observed all the evidence that exists to know, which you haven't done. So you are left with pure agnosticism--you can't know for sure. But that itself is a position requiring absolute knowledge about the fact that you cannot know all the evidence, thus the contradiction that demonstrates the impossibility of living consistently with your skepticism. Become a Christian and you will have a basis for knowing things as they are made known by the Creator. As an atheist, you don't know enough about all the existing evidence to tell whether the opening chapters of Genesis are not consistent with observable reality, since you haven't observed all of reality. You only observe a small part of it. You don't have absolute knowledge about the beginning of our universe, nor have you observed it. The question of whether Genesis makes sense in an atheist' universe is irrelevant anyway, seeing we are only self-replicating chemicals. You are just programmed for unbelief by the way you have evolved. But to a Christian, the opening Genesis chapters make sense in that they declare God as the Creator and Designer of all things, and that He purposefully made mankind, putting them in a special position of authority over this world, reflecting His own likeness. That is not unreasonable at all from a believing point of view. Only from your unjustified unbelieving view do you have a problem with it because of your presuppositions.

"Of course, you'll just claim that I can't know anything because I reject your particular God."

Yes, indeed. From my point of view, you are living in YHWH's world and denying it. That's what the Bible says (Romans 1:18-32). So as long as you claim to have knowledge as an atheist, you contradict yourself, because if atheism were true, there could be no immaterial laws governing the universe (destroying your faith in logic), nor could you have all knowledge to know whether there is enough evidence in the universe to prove the existence of God or disprove Him. And as I said, by being agnostic you are also claiming a certainty that you cannot support--the certainty that you cannot be certain, which is a claim to knowledge that you cannot have. So I hope you begin to see why as a Christian I think your perspective is foolish. Without acknowledging that we are made by God, and everything we know is dependent upon Him, we are utterly in the dark about science, evidence, logic, intelligence, design, reasoning and morality, since the underlying principles for these things cannot be accounted for without God. As the late Dr. Bahnsen used to say, "The proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything."

"The base assumptions I start with is that I exist, and what I can observe is, in fact, real. Beyond that, everything is my interpretation of that observational input."

If I asked you, what proof do you have to know that you exist? You would likely have to answer me assuming that you already exist. The same is true for how you justify your use of reasoning. That's the circularity of atheism. You believe things without proof, then hypocritically denigrate others, especially Christians, for doing the same. I'm glad you admit some of your presuppositions, but on what basis are you able to trust that your observations are correct, or that your own reasoning is reliable?

"No, I don't have all the answers. I also can't say with 100% confidence that there are no gods. That confidence level, however, is so close to 100% as to make no difference. I am absolutely certain that the Bible is man made and Yahweh doesn't exist. Likewise with the Quran and Allah."

The fact that you claim you can't know "with 100% confidence that there are no gods" is itself, logically a claim to absolute certainty. You simply can't say that you are unable to know with 100% confidence that there are no gods, since you don't have all knowledge to know that. Perhaps you can be 100% confident that there is one God? Now the Christian answer to this problem of certainty is by relying on the One who does actually know all things for certain, and reveals specific things to us by which we can know them. We aren't ashamed of the belief that God moved men to write the Bible (2 Peter 1:16-21). But since you claim to know Yahweh doesn't exist, I challenge you to prove that He doesn't exist. Tell me how you were able to see all the existing evidence with a perfectly neutral mind and finally come to that conclusion after long hours of careful consideration. Perhaps you will then see my point.

The Bible teaches that we must repent by changing our minds toward God and putting our trust in the One He has sent to reconcile us to Him, Jesus Christ, His Son. We submit our wills to His, believing so that His death and resurrection covers our sin and brings us to God in peace. We need an ongoing "renewing of our mind" as we learn of Him who first loved us. You need the same, KJR. If I could, I would show you the real scars on Jesus' hands, feet and side, and the glory of His appearances alive from the dead, so that you would believe. But I can tell you to look in the New Testament. Read the story again. Think about it. Think about it seriously. However, as long as you are committed to your unbelief, even if you saw Him with your own eyes, you would not believe (Luke 16:31, "[Abraham] replied to him, 'If they do not respond to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" NET).

"May Thor not squash you with his Hammer."

If you believe in Thor, why do you then argue against the existence of deities? But since you don't actually believe in him, I have no reason to discuss him with you. Let's keep talking about your unsubstantial belief in atheism and the reasons for my belief in Yahweh.

Thank you KJR.

17 comments:

KJR said...

I will touch some of your comments while I have time.

1> I don't accept the Bible's authority. Your belief in it has absolutely no bearing on mine. I bet you don't accept quotes from the Quran as being of divine origin, why do you expect me to do the same with your book?

2> Biology text books don't claim to be the inspired word of God, nor does it claim to have knowledge of the unknowable. They don't demand you believe them on faith. Everything in them is independently verifiable.
2b> You have not demonstrated God's existence.

3> The Quran claims that Allah is the creator of the universe. Creation proves Creator. Therefore the Quran is true too? Both of them can't be right, however both of them can be wrong.

I have one question before I continue. Do you think there is any possibility that you are incorrect about the existence of God or the divine origin of the Bible?

--KJR

Penn Tomassetti said...

KJR said...

"I will touch some of your comments while I have time."


Thank you, KJR, for coming all the way over to my blog and responding to me. I want you to know that I appreciate that, and I respect you as a person, even while I strongly disagree with your arguments and presuppositions.

I have been really busy, but will post my answers to your questions as soon as I am able.
Thank you.

Penn Tomassetti said...

First, I hope you will not mind that my replies are going to try to explain to you some important things as I answer your questions, making them quite lengthy. I think it will be worth it, and hope you can bear with me and listen to it all, then think hard about my answers.

Thanks.

Penn Tomassetti said...

"1> I don't accept the Bible's authority. Your belief in it has absolutely no bearing on mine. I bet you don't accept quotes from the Quran as being of divine origin, why do you expect me to do the same with your book?"

1) I realized from the beginning that you don't accept the Bible's authority, but thank you for making it very clear anyway. I do have a problem with this answer, which is that you have missed the point I made when I justified my use of the Bible and responded to your objection. I recommend rereading carefully what I said, and then if that is not enough, keep asking for clarification. My use of the Bible does not depend on whether you accept it. The fact that you don't does not negate my use of it as my source. When a Muslim quotes the Quran, I listen and respond to what his arguments from it are. What you don't understand is that for a Muslim, the Quran is his ultimate authority. His beliefs are supposedly based on what it teaches, and to ask him to stop basing his arguments on the Quran is like asking him to stop being a Muslim if he wants to talk to me. Instead I discuss with him why I disagree with what it says and why he should view it as I do. For me, the Bible, being God's Word, is by its very nature authoritative and ultimate. I have no higher authority to appeal to for truth and knowledge about God and His purposes in the world. Have you ever asked yourself what your own ultimate authority is? I think I have an idea of what it is. So if you want to be fair, you should stop using your presupposed standards for knowing truth when arguing with me, since I disagree with them. But you won't do that because they are what you depend on. Perhaps that makes it clear for you why I quote the Bible despite your unbelief. It is a presuppositional issue. You presuppose your human autonomy, empiricism and reason as valid starting points for discovering truth. I don't. As one committed to Jesus Christ, I presuppose the existence of God and the Bible as His true revelation to all. This doesn't mean we just can't ever argue or prove our points with each other. It means that we have to recognize where each of us is coming from and respond to each other with such things in mind. To help you understand where I'm coming from, let me just say that I use reason and logic, trusting they are reliable because God created them so. But I also assume that because of sin, even our ability to think and reason has been corrupted, making it impossible for us to come to know God by reason alone. God, by His Spirit and Word, must make Himself known to us in a soul-saving way, or we will never believe in Him rightly. I cannot change these assumptions and be a consistent Christian, just as the Muslim can't abandon his use of and belief in the Quran and remain consistent with his faith. To be consistent, we must try to argue with our presuppositions in mind. I don't agree with you that we should start by assuming there is no God and then working our way to Him by the use of evidences alone. The fact that you start by assuming He doesn't exist will actually determine where you end up. If you start in disbelief, you end in disbelief. You have to learn to see things from my vantage point in order to make sense out of why I see all that exists as evidence for God, whether you agree or not. I am trying to do the same for you, by looking at things from your side without abandoning my faith in God, and showing you that from your worldview (your set of presuppositions underlying all of your thinking) you cannot rely on reasoning and logic, nor are you able to examine all existing evidence. And I believe this makes it impossible for you to rationally remain an atheist. The Bible teaches that the sin in your heart toward God makes it impossible for you to acknowledge the truth and live in obedience to it, unless God in His mercy gives you the power to change. That's why I pray for you and will try not to allow you to distort the issues at hand.

Penn Tomassetti said...

"2> Biology text books don't claim to be the inspired word of God, nor does it claim to have knowledge of the unknowable. They don't demand you believe them on faith. Everything in them is independently verifiable. 
2b> You have not demonstrated God's existence."

2) I hope you realize that your responses are chock full of underlying assumptions. By what knowledge do you assume that God is unknowable? Since you do not have all knowledge about all of existence, you cannot logically conclude that God is an unknowable subject. I wasn't comparing a biology textbook to the Bible, but was making the point that it is unnecessary to submit to the doubts of someone who does not trust it before using it as a source of authority. Biology textbooks don't compare with the Bible in their content, and I wasn't making that comparison. Your basic misunderstandings are partly why I have to write so much to respond and correct you. Nevertheless, I am pleased to do so if you take my responses seriously. You also don't seem to understand the concept of faith, at least not as Christians understand it. You have a different definition of it than I do. The Bible teaches that "faith is being sure of what we hope for , being convinced of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1 NET). This means that one who has faith is certain, convinced, persuaded of what they are trusting in. Faith means to believe in, or trust in someone or something who is trustworthy, i.e., worthy-to-be-trusted/believed (such as Christ and His Word). Nowhere does the Bible teach, nor do Christians believe that our faith is not verifiable. That is another one of your underlying mistaken assumptions. What we do say is that unbelievers are biased because of the sinful corruption of their minds and opposition toward God. We admit our biases, but also present reasons for the truthfulness of our faith. Nobody examines the evidence without bias. Neither you nor I are neutral in our commitments. You are also wrong to compare biology textbooks to Scripture, since their nature and categories are definitionally different. But to assume that biology textbooks do not require faith is also a mistake in your understanding. It is not to the same level, or kind of faith, that people have in the Bible, but there is a level of faith involved in anyone's use of a scientific sourcebook. What I mean is that you have to rely on the authors of the textbook to have their facts right, which is to say you trust them. You may not trust them completely, and they don't demand that of you, but you trust them to a degree, even though you can verify their claims. Not only that, but you trust the assumptions that all of science is founded upon. You have to believe that human reason and logic are reliable. You have to assume, without evidence, that the future will be like the past (all of science relies on this premise, though it cannot be proven by evidence). To claim that we know these things by observation is very mistaken, since the laws of logic cannot be observed, and they are universal (always apply everywhere), and no one has ever observed the future. Thus science itself is based on faith regarding these foundational assumptions. You wrongly assume that it is not. So please don't confuse the issues regarding faith in your objections anymore.

Penn Tomassetti said...

2b) Just because you did not understand my arguments, or because you disagreed with them, doesn't mean I failed to demonstrate God's existence. I did so. I will continue to do so. But before I do, let me ask if you have ever listened to the "Great Debate" between Gordon Stein (atheist) and Greg Bahnsen (Christian)? I'm trying to use the same basis for proof with you as Greg Bahnsen used in that debate. If you never heard it before, you can hear it for free here: http://www.sermonaudio.ca/bahnsen/BahnsenVsStein_TheGreatDebate-DoesGodExist.mp3
You can also read the transcript: http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf
Or just google something like: "Great Debate, Stein and Bahnsen"


3> The Quran claims that Allah is the creator of the universe. Creation proves Creator. Therefore the Quran is true too? Both of them can't be right, however both of them can be wrong.

Penn Tomassetti said...

3> The Quran claims that Allah is the creator of the universe. Creation proves Creator. Therefore the Quran is true too? Both of them can't be right, however both of them can be wrong.

3) This response is a straw-man rebuttal. You are indeed wise to see that both cannot be right, but you are wrong to assume that I made the argument that creation proves the Creator which proves the Bible. I did not say it in that way. The problem is that you misunderstand the entire framework from which I have been answering you. To a Muslim, yes, creation is evidence for God. That is true for me as well. The Bible is not proven true by that fact, but it is the Bible alone that can adequately give you the foundation for why that is true. The Bible is not proven accurate by the observable world, but rather the Bible alone can give you the foundational presuppositions to makes sense out of proof and nature in any way. I believe it is backed up by natural evidence. But the Bible does not depend on evidence from creation for its authority. That's where you are missing the point. The authority for the Bible is inherent, since it is "theopneustos" or "God-breathed"--it is God's self-authenticating Word. Just because the Quran claims to be the same thing does not mean it is so. There is a way to determine the truth or falsity of that statement. So it may be said that it is in the nature of the Bible's origins, its contents, its explanatory power, its historical reliability, its truthfulness, and not least, the testimony of God's Holy Spirit to it in the hearts of believers that confirm its self-authenticating claims. As Christians, we presuppose the Bible's truthfulness, then examine its internal consistency and message. You don't have to agree with me that the Bible is God's Word at the outset, but you should be able to look at it as if it were, and begin to think about it from my point of view. You are simply wrong to assume that if one accepts the Bible as true, then he must also accept the Quran, since the Quran claims to be from the Creator of the universe. But that is a fallacious argument for more reasons than one. The first is that I didn't say to you that I trust the Bible simply because it claims God is the Creator of the universe. I was explaining to you why it makes sense within a worldview where one believes in God, that the Bible would talk about God in that way, which is very unlike the other gods you mentioned. But the Quran was written more than 1,000 years after Genesis, and 600 years after the New Testament. It borrows its idea of God from the Jews and Christians (although with significant changes), and says so itself. Therefore, even while the Quran makes similar claims, it must be examined for internal consistency on its own terms, just as the Bible is, in order to validate itself. If it fails to prove what it claims on its own terms, then it may be dismissed on the grounds that it does not represent the Word of God as the Word of God requires of itself. The Bible does indeed validate itself, but the presuppositions by which atheism operates do not usually allow for it. Here how the Bible validates itself, by denying it, one is reduced to intellectual foolishness. For example, the Bible explains why we can trust the laws of logic, the laws of science, morality, etc., by giving us the necessary foundation for their existence. It says that the beginning of knowledge (i.e., true knowledge) is reverence for God, and the knowledge of God. It tells us that in Christ the universe is held together, and that all of wisdom and knowledge are kept or hid in Him. Without starting with this God, you leave yourself without a foundation for intelligence, knowledge, science, logic, morality, or anything else. Here's why: you cannot rationally account for these things as an atheist, without acknowledging dependence upon Him.

Penn Tomassetti said...

I have one question before I continue. Do you think there is any possibility that you are incorrect about the existence of God or the divine origin of the Bible?
--KJR"

To answer your question, I feel that I must try to compel you to go back and read many of my responses to you, if necessary, and there you will find the answer to your question and the reasons for it.

Thank you.

Penn Tomassetti said...

Allow me a question to you... do you want there to be absolutely no evidence for God, and if God exists, do you agree that He could make it known to us undeniably, so that to deny it would be a lie?

KJR said...

I'll answer your last question first.
"Allow me a question to you... do you want there to be absolutely no evidence for God, and if God exists, do you agree that He could make it known to us undeniably, so that to deny it would be a lie?"

Actually, I'd like to see some evidence for God. Any god. However, I have seen absolutely none. All I have seen are extraordinary claims by members of the various fan clubs, and there are a lot of different fan clubs. A lot of it claiming exactly the same things, yet they all claim it points to their particular deity.

Mundane claims (i.e. "I'm married." or "This is my car.") are generally accepted with little or no evidence.

Extraordinary claims (i.e. "YHWH is all knowing, all powerful, and created the entire universe!") require extraordinary evidence. Evidence that I don't think any member of His Fanclub could produce.

YHWH, if he exists, would know exactly what it would take to convince me of his existence. And being all powerful, would take 0 effort on his part to do it.

From my understanding of this discussion, and your other comments on Atheist Central you claim that:
1) a god exists.
2) That god is YHWH.
3) The Bible is the inerrant word of YHWH.
4) Those who don't accept #1-3 are not only wrong, but incapable of claiming to have any knowledge or understanding whatsoever.
5) That you are absolutely, without any shred of doubt, 100% positive that there is absolutely no way that you are wrong about all of these claims.

I claim that you are wrong on all 5 of those points, with the same confidence level that I have that leprechauns and Lord Voldemort are products of the human imagination.

You will, however, invoke #4 to counter my claims.

#5 is the big problem though. I know I can be wrong about stuff. Mis-educated, misunderstandings, or just plain don't know yet. My knowledge is not perfect, nor is it complete. I am always learning.

Because of #5, I will have to end any further discussion with you. I prefer my discussions/debates be meaningful. Meaningful discussions can not be had with someone who refuses to acknowledge that they might be wrong.
It's much more productive to try and talk a brick wall into moving out of your way.

Don't be foolish in your thinking. Acknowledge your Creator. Humbling yourself before Allah will only bring you good in the long run. Allahu Akbar.
(No, I don't believe in Allah either. However I know that statement will be as effective on you as your statement was on me.)

--KJR

Penn Tomassetti said...


Because of #5, I will have to end any further discussion with you. I prefer my discussions/debates be meaningful. Meaningful discussions can not be had with someone who refuses to acknowledge that they might be wrong.
It's much more productive to try and talk a brick wall into moving out of your way.


OK. But I still think you ought to take the time to listen to the Stein vs. Bahnsen debate, if you haven't already.

And by the way, you want there to be evidence, but what type of evidence do you think would convince you?

Thanks for the discussion.
-Penn

Penn Tomassetti said...

Extraordinary claims (i.e. "YHWH is all knowing, all powerful, and created the entire universe!") require extraordinary evidence. Evidence that I don't think any member of His Fanclub could produce.

This is where I think your presuppositions are impossible to overcome. You have concluded that a certain "extraordinary" evidence has not been provided, thus you will not even deal with the issues or the evidence that I pointed out to in regards to this. You want evidence, but dismiss it out of hand because you don't think it is possible to produce. That is the bias and the sin I have been talking about.

KJR said...

"And by the way, you want there to be evidence, but what type of evidence do you think would convince you?"

The same type of evidence that would convince you of the existence of any other god besides YHWH.

Oh, wait, there is nothing that would ever convince you that you are mistaken about your presuppositions of the existence of YHWH.

"This is where I think your presuppositions are impossible to overcome."

And yours aren't? See point #5 above..

At least I accept the possibility. My experience says that the various deity's fan clubs don't have any evidence at all. And I doubt they could ever produce anything convincing.

--KJR

Penn Tomassetti said...

Hi KJR,
I'm glad to see you back! I thought you were done here.

The same type of evidence that would convince you of the existence of any other god besides YHWH.
Oh, wait, there is nothing that would ever convince you that you are mistaken about your presuppositions of the existence of YHWH.


What you don't seem to understand is that you are committed to an atheistic worldview, whether you realize it, like it, hate it, or not. You want me to act like you, assuming there is no God, then trying to prove by empiricism that there is. I think that is incorrect, even wrong.

I admit that my arguments may not always be valid, logical or perfect, and I make mistakes in many ways when I speak. But what I can't deny is that God exists. I don't think it is possible to remain truthful and say such a thing. It would amount to lying, as I pointed out in my last question to you.

You have not experienced enough in the world to be sure your experience is certainly correct in that there are no gods. How can you rely on your experience if it is limited? The problem is that you live as if God exists, while you deny it. That is, you live as if things like experience, logic, existence, reason, science, morality, and so on, are real necessities. But if you are right and there is no God, then you are only matter arguing with matter. It makes no difference to you whether God exists or whether the moon is made of cheese. But if He exists, it makes sense why you want certainty... a certainty which is impossible without the existence of God. The proof for God's existence is the impossibility of the contrary. You can't live and talk without relying on God.

If there was another God that was claimed to have all the characteristics of YHWH, and had a revelation that was the same, the same Triune Nature, and was singular, the sole existing Creator, then it wouldn't matter what you called that Deity, it would be my God, YHWH, just with a different name, but same God. That's why those other deities you named cannot exist, other than that in my worldview they represent demonic spirits.

Penn Tomassetti said...

You also seem to want me to think you are open minded. But under the surface, you will not accept any evidence that doesn't convince *you*, even if that evidence is coherent and logical. So if KJR doesn't like it, it doesn't count as evidence. But that just isn't a good method for discovering truth.

On the other hand, if my God does exist, I understand why you are that way, why I am this way, and why we are even having this discussion. But if your worldview is right, then having this discussion is pointless. I evolved to believe this way. You evolved to believe that way. You can't even make free decisions apart from the way the molecules in your brain have become organized. So why even argue?

But you argue, showing that you know you are required to know and respond to truth. That makes sense if you were made that way by the God of truth, but not if we evolved from mindless atoms.

Penn Tomassetti said...

KJR said...
"And by the way, you want there to be evidence, but what type of evidence do you think would convince you?"
The same type of evidence that would convince you of the existence of any other god besides YHWH.
Oh, wait, there is nothing that would ever convince you that you are mistaken about your presuppositions of the existence of YHWH.
"This is where I think your presuppositions are impossible to overcome."
And yours aren't? See point #5 above..
At least I accept the possibility. My experience says that the various deity's fan clubs don't have any evidence at all. And I doubt they could ever produce anything convincing.
--KJR


I want to answer a couple more points you brought up.

1) If any other god presented by men had the same revelation (i.e., equal to the Biblical Scriptures), the same nature, the same way of salvation, etc., I would be convinced. I obviously cannot give you every detail for why in this comment, but I hope you get the idea. It is interesting to ask why you are are not convinced by the same evidence I'm convinced by? I have provided my reasons for that in my previous responses.

2) If there were absolutely no existing evidence for the existence of YHWH, I obviously wouldn't believe in Him. But the nature of my answer is that the proof of YHWH's existence is that it would be impossible to prove anything without Him. If you are a serious person, you might want to actually probe into the details of this and not dismiss it out of hand because it sounds strange to you or you don't like it. I find that a very irrational way of responding to someone's evidence.

3) You, as an unbeliever, could never conclude that if God existed He could in no way possible make it undeniably known to His creatures if He so desired. Therefore, it is totally reasonable for me to say that within atheism, one cannot know all the evidence for or against God. But if God reveals Himself undeniably, then to deny Him in light of that knowledge would equal lying. This is the case with the God of the Bible. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it any less real.

4) Proof: the proof that God is undeniable is that when you deny the existence of God, you are left without a rational explanation for why such things exist as laws of logic (by which you reason and examine evidence), the uniformity of nature (which you rely on for every decision, action and word, including for doing science), and morality (which you are clearly applying by demanding a standard of truthfulness). Therefore, by denying the existence of God, you leave yourself without a reasonable defense for why you live this way. And if you repent, trust in Jesus Christ and believe in my God, you have every reason to accept these things, because they reflect the character and nature of the God who revealed them about Himself and His design for the world in the Biblical Scriptures.

Penn Tomassetti said...

You also seem to have assumed that the Bible either cannot be taken as evidence for the existence of YHWH, or that you are sure that it is not. But as far as I'm aware, the only reason you gave for that kind of assumption was that you think believing in this God is similar to believing leprechauns and other mythical characters. But that comparison is just unqualified, since the God I am talking about, and the Scriptural revelation I'm utilizing are completely different than what you compare them to. And if you really want people to take your assumptions seriously, as more than just your opinion, you have to show how they are similar. But I will obviously challenge you on that as well if you do.