THE FOLLY OF DENYING GOD



Beyond a doubt, the most significant question to ever penetrate the human mind is that of the existence of God. More consequences for humanity hinge on the denial or affirmation of God’s existence than any other issue.

Countless numbers of Christian families have sent their children off to schools across America only to see them return as strangers robbed of their faith in God and of the basis for morality and ethics.

Many of these children have attempted to fill the vacuum in their lives through aberrant sex, drugs, and alcohol. Others have sought to fill this void with material success, which can never satisfy the spiritual needs of one created in the image of God.

“Is there really a God?” Though there are a variety of possible responses to this question, there are three traditional responses that predominate in Western society: (1) God does not exist – atheism; (2) we cannot know whether God exists – agnosticism; and ( a personal God does exist – theism. This article will demonstrate how, in witnessing to an atheist, one can move from atheism to agnosticism, from agnosticism to theism, and from the concept of an impersonal God to the personal God of Scripture.

To begin, atheism involves a logical fallacy known as a universal negative. Simply stated, a person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say “there is no God” from his own pool of knowledge. Only someone capable of being in all places at the same time – with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe – can make such a statement based on the facts. In other words, a person would have to be God to say there is no God. Hence, the assertion is logically indefensible.

By using arguments like this, you will often find that an atheist quickly converts to agnosticism and is thus making progress rapidly in the right direction.

This leads us to the second possible response: agnosticism. In dealing with an open-minded agnostic, an approach I have found effective is to point out that the universe is an effect which requires a sufficient cause, and the only sufficient cause is God. As Scripture says, “the heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Ps. 19:1).

It is helpful to clarify that there are only four possible explanations for how the universe came to be. The first is that the universe is an illusion. This ultimately reduces to solipsism – the theory that “self” is the only reality, that “I alone exist.” This view is unacceptable in an age of scientific enlightenment. (Even a full-blown solipsist looks both ways before crossing the street.)

The second possibility is that the universe is eternal. This possibility flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics, which says that everything in the universe is running inexorably downhill from order to disorder, from complexity to chaos. If the universe was eternally old, it would have died a heat-loss death an eternity ago.

The third “possibility” is that the universe emerged from nothing. Little needs to be said about the absurdity of this option. Reason tells us that out of nothing comes nothing. This position militates against the first law of thermodynamics, which says that energy can be neither created nor destroyed; it can only change forms. To say an effect can exist without a cause, one must deny the basis for all scientific investigation and rational thought.

The fourth (and only tenable) possibility is that the universe was created by God. Clearly, theism – the belief in a personal God who is the Creator and Ruler of the universe – is the only viable option on the question of God’s existence. Once this is established, it can be pointed out that only a personal God can account for human personality, thought, and morality. Furthermore, this personal God has manifested Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, who demonstrated His deity through the undeniable fact of the Resurrection. Additionally, God has provided His written Word which can be shown to be divine rather than human in origin.

Although we cannot talk atheists and agnostics into the Kingdom of God, God can use our answers to open their hearts to receive the gospel. Scripture therefore exhorts us to “always be prepared to give to every man an answer” (1 Pet. 3:15).

www.equip.org

www.probe.org

what about the answer: Yes, God exists?

Although we cannot talk atheists and agnostics into the Kingdom of God, God can use our answers to open their hearts to receive the gospel. Scripture therefore exhorts us to “always be prepared to give to every man an answer” (1 Pet. 3:15).

www.equip.org

www.probe.org
[/b][/quote]

Is that like, the book of mormons or some shit?

There is a fifth possibility.... that you are full of shit!!!!
I do not believe in the existence of God and I am niether an Athiest or Agnostic... explain that dumbass... you are so trite it hurts.. thank you for not being around as often Sam... believe me I do not think anyone misses you... the only thing your article moved in me was my bowels..

The only folly in denying your "GOD" is that I will have free will and no fear of going to a mythical Hell. I can live my life consequence free; and not have to suffer under the yoke of one of the more ignorant religions to come along in ten thousand years. I think this is not folly moreso then happiness. To accept your "GOD" I would have to give up my own self conscious and well become as ignorant as the originator of this imbecilic thread.

This brings to light something I pointed out a while ago; it's frightening that religious inclination seems to have absolutely nothing to do with intelligence level; Pazazu (real creative name choice there, haven't seen that one used a thousand times already) and Samichking have completely opposite opinions on the subjects, but are both total idiots. Samichking, if anything, seems slightly more intelligent because he can at least speak his nonsensical arguments fluently most of the time, which Paz seems incapable of.

I myself believe in God and am neither an ignorant sheep nor a mindless drone, thank you.

let's look at your second law claim a little more in depth so you can see the fallacy upon which your claim is based.


Creationist claims:

1. The second law of thermodynamics requires that all systems and individual parts of systems have a tendency to go from order to disorder. The second law will not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. To do so would violate the universal tendency of matter to decay or disintegrate.

2. Creationists recognize that in many cases order does spontaneously arise from disorder: seeds grow into trees, eggs develop into chicks, crystalline salts form when a solution evaporates, and crystalline snowflakes form from randomly moving water vapor molecules. In cases like these, creationists have assigned an attribute that there must be a programmed energy conversion mechanism to direct the application of the energy needed to bring about the change.

3. This energy conversion mechanism is postulated to "overcome" the second law, thus allowing order to spontaneously arise from disorder.

4. Creationists believe that changes requiring human thought and effort, such as constructing a building, manufacturing an airplane, making a bed, writing a book, etc. are covered by the science of thermodynamics. Creationists believe that a wall will not build itself simply because to do so would violate the laws of thermodynamics. In building the wall, the stonemason overcomes the laws of thermodynamics!

5. In the case of organic change, like seeds growing into trees and chicks developing from eggs, creationists believe that the directed energy conversion mechanism that overcomes the laws of thermodynamics comes from God.


Comments on the above five claims:

1. The degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called "entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy increase and an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. However, the entropy of some parts of the system can spontaneously decrease at the expense of an even greater increase of other parts of the system. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The ICR chapter states flatly that entropy can never decrease; this is in direct conflict with the most fundamental law of thermodynamics that entropy equals heat flow divided by absolute temperature.

2. There is no need to postulate an energy conversion mechanism. Thermodynamics correlates, with mathematical equations, information relating to the interaction of heat and work. It does not speculate as to the mechanisms involved. The energy conversion mechanism can not be expressed in terms of mathematical relationships or thermodynamic laws. Although it is reasonable to assume that complex energy conversion mechanisms actually exist, the manner in which these may operate is outside the scope of thermodynamics. Assigning an energy conversion mechanism to thermodynamics is simply a ploy to distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics.

3. The use and application of thermodynamics is strictly limited by the mathematical treatment of the basic equations of thermodynamics. There is no provision in thermodynamics for any mechanism that would overcome the laws of thermodynamics.

4. Thermodynamics does not deal with situations requiring human thought and effort in order to create order from disorder. Thermodynamics is limited by the equations and mathematics of thermodynamics. If it can't be expressed mathematically, it isn't thermodynamics!

Creationism would replace mathematics with metaphors. Metaphors may or may not serve to illustrate a fact, but they are not the fact itself. One thing is certain: metaphors are completely useless when it comes to the thermodynamics of calculating the efficiency of a heat engine, or the entropy change of free expansion of a gas, or the power required to operate a compressor. This can only be done with mathematics, not metaphors. Creationists have created a "voodoo" thermodynamics based solely on metaphors. This in order to convince those not familiar with real thermodynamics that their sectarian religious views have scientific validity.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html

Seems there is some animosity here. Why suck hatred against this person's belief Dyshade? I didn't see anything were you were put down by anybody.

Ok, so essentially the counteraction to agnosticism in the zealot handbook is point out that we can't comprehend or begin to understand where the universe came from, therefore, God must have done it. Yea, a scant few millenia ago (and possibly even sooner), folk worshipped the sun as God because of the heat and light it provided, but also because it was a big bright shiny thing in the sky they couldn't comprehend. Now that we've advanced to the point we know what the sun is, hence, no longer worship it, zealots turn to the birth of the universe as God's calling card. When science advances in a few more millenia and we figure out what caused the big bang (to which we're getting closer), what great curtain are zealots going to hide their Wizard of God behind?

Faith is fine, i'm open to the idea of a god, but i'm not open to people who are sure they can prove it to me, especially with an argument as hollow as attributing the as of yet unexplainable to Him.

...by adding that using scripture to realy a point on observations is poor form.

i would also like to add that many things in the universe scientifically just are as we have not found the cause of such phenomina. gravity IS, though we have yet to find the graviton. Neve Campbell IS though i have yet to see her outside of the medium of television or theater. that DOES NOT hoever mean that GOD IS since the only things that can be rightly attributed to god arise from non-empirical data and SUPERSTITION...

there... thats my two cents for the day

Samichking why do you ask us these things?
Do enjoy seeing all your statments being ripped to shreds by all the angry hordes of people you piss off?

I follow the path of the Goddess and worship the earth...where do I fit in your little world? Ooooh wait let me try...

Deuteronomy 18:10 -12 ...observers of times, enchanters, witches, charmers, consultants of familiar spirits, wizards, all of which are an abomination of the Lord.

So he doesn't like me than?

That's right Jordyn, and you don't have to like him either...

I have no issues with him, he simply has no affect on or in my life, if the scripture is correct however, he doesn't like me, however if a person who has killed many innocent souls, goes to prison, finds God and God likes him more than me, just because I enjoy magick? I don't think that is really fair

Well if you wanna talk fairness I think you'll have to harass Samichking. I don't there in any fairness involved with Christian beliefs, personaly...

I can't wait...I just want to state I AM NOT A BOY!!!!!I am a girl...some of the more intelligent people on this board made that mistake when we first met...just wanted to clear up any doubts...to him...you Acacia Catt...I like you...

Yes, I had kinda gathered that you were a girl...

Wow, I feel special...

it's funny, the girls catch on to it...like Shy said it was the y, however I guess guys don't pay attention to such little details...

Yes, if you stop and think about it, it is rather obvious, but most guys have problems with that sort of thing...