Tim, The Christian Asks The Atheists: What Is Your Best Argument That God Does Not Exist?

OK, you atheists. Here is my challenge to you.  

You say that we Christians have no "proof" that there is a God.  In a sense, that is true.  Scientific "proof" for the existence of God may not exist (I think that is debatable, but for the sake of the argument, let's assume that it is true), at least not to your satisfaction. Yet, I would say to you that you do not have proof that God doesn't exist either.  And I would say to you that it is more rational to believe in the existence of God with the caveat that even though it is more rational, I do think that a belief in God requires "a leap of faith."

Why do I think it is more rational to believe in a God?  There are too many things for which atheists have no real explanation which a belief in God does explain:

I do not believe that atheists have any valid basis for ethics or morality.

I do not believe that atheists can really explain the origin of the world.  How does something come from nothing?  If you believe in the primordial soup, where did the primordial soup come from?  If you believe in the Big Bang, where did the matter come from that went bang?

I do not believe that atheists can explain the origin of the sensation pain. Or for that matter, I do not believe that an atheist can explain the origin of love. How can the sensations of pain or love be derived via natural selection?  

Atheists challenge Christians to prove that God exists. Well, I would ask you to put the shoe on the other foot. My challenge to you is, "What is your best argument that God does not exist?"  Or put another way, "Why do you believe it to be more rational to be an atheist?"

Tim, The Christian, Asks The Atheists: On What Do You Base Your Morality

Andrew, in your last post, I think you make a fallacious argument, namely, you say that atheism makes you a better person.  Atheism cannot make you a better person, or at least a more moral person. We can both go back and forth and point at people who claim to be in our camp who are evil.  In my last post, I pointed to Stalin (yes, I incorrectly labelled it Lenin) as someone who did horrible things in the name of atheism.  And you pointed out Harold Camping, whom I readily agree did evil in the name of Christianity.  The point is that you cannot dismiss the truth of Christianity based on the evil that is done in its name because even if someone claims to be a Christian it does not mean that they are practicing their alleged faith correctly. In the same way, I cannot dismiss atheism because Stalin committed mass murder.

What I do not understand, and what I ask you atheists is, "on what basis do you adhere to a moral code?"  In my mind, if a person is an atheist, there is no basis for ethics or a moral code.   

Atheists attempt to dismiss Christianity by saying that its moral code is skewed.  I take issue with that, but that is not the point.  The point is that Christianity has the basis for a moral code -- a basis which calls us to love each other, to be unselfish, etc.  Why should the atheist be unselfish?  Because it benefits mankind?  So what if it benefits mankind?  If I am an atheist, why should I do anything ethical?  For example, if I am an atheist and I can get away with cheating on my taxes, there is nothing in atheism which tells me not to do that.  Also, the morals espoused by Christianity, and the Ten Commandments in particular, are the basis for most legal systems in the Western world.

Whether or not you like the moral code of Christianity, the Christian has a moral code. Whether the Christian follows that moral code all the time, is a completely different matter. In fact, we Christians tend to admit that we fail to follow the moral code all the time, thus our need for a Savior.  Nevertheless, Christianity prescribes what the Christian should do; atheism does not prescribe what the atheist should do. In fact, it makes no sense for an atheist to have a sense of duty about ethics. On what basis does the atheist ever have a sense of duty?

Furthermore, this is also a proof for God's existence, and the main argument that is used by C.S. Lewis.  We are all born with a conscience, a basic knowledge of right and wrong.  Unless he is a sociopath, every human being has this innate sense of right and wrong.   Where would this innate sense of morality come from if there was no God?  This sense of morality is in every person, in every culture.   In every country in the world, it is wrong to steal from another; in every country in the world, it is wrong to lie for no reason; no matter your faith, it is wrong for me to walk up to you, bop you on the nose for no reason and take your wallet.  Where did the conscience come from unless it was placed there be God?  The innate sense of right and wrong cannot evolve from the primordial soup.

Whether or not you like Christianity's moral code, can you admit that at least Christianity has the basis for a moral code, and that atheism does not?

Andrew the Atheist asks: How much do you, Tim, know about apologetics?

Things are really taking off on this blog, and I'm really excited.  But before we go too far, I wanted to ask a question that will bring to the front some background on both the debaters here.  I think introductions are overdue.

Atheists, certainly THIS atheist, are often accused of being angry, arrogant, close-minded people.  I did a blog on this here.  It appears as though the atheist dismisses the argument out-of-hand, without really considering the idea.  I don't think this is what is really happening.  I think that the atheist has heard the argument before but the believer has never heard the rebuttal. 

For example, in a comment, someone said that evolution works like putting parts in a box, shaking it, waiting, and out pops a watch.  This is so common an argument that I should be surprised the poster has never heard why that statement is absurd.  But I doubt that she has.  I would not be surprised if she has no idea.  This is what brings me to the question I've posed.

I am an apostate, not just an atheist.  I attended 12 years of private catholic schools.  I had multiple classes on the old and new testaments.  I even attended something very similar to jesus camp.  I know the bible.  I know the claims of christianity.  I know the arguments for christianity.  These are reasons why I am an atheist today. 

The first-cause argument, the ontological arguement, the argument from design, the cosmological argument, the lord-liar-lunatic argument, Pascal's wager, and a few others the titles of which I forget are all very familiar to me.  I've held classes on them.  I've argued both sides.

There was a Pew study about a year ago that showed that atheists and agnostics are FAR more knowledgable about religion than believers.  I think this is because most atheists have at least heard some of the claims of christianity, and have found them lacking.  However, I have found it is perfectly possible to be a believer, and never know why Pascal's wager fails.  Some don't even know what it is.

So the question here is simple, yet I hope the answer is long.  How familiar are you, Tim, on apologetics?  Why are you a christian?

If you want to read my apostasy story, it's in three parts.
Part1, Jesus Camp
Part 2, Finding my religion
Part 3, Falisfiable Evidence

Welcome To The Debates

Welcome to our blog.  Andrew is the atheist, and Tim is the evangelical Christian.  We have never met in person, but have already had lively debates online concerning faith versus atheism.  This blog is simply an expansion of those debates.  We will argue back and forth, and hope that you will be willing to enter into the fray by posting comments.

Let the debates begin!