If there is one thing that I've noticed, there are a lot of new atheists and agnostics out there trying to disprove God, like Richard Dawkins, for example. He wrote "The God Delusion". I would have to say, there are some arguments that he makes that may sound good on the surface, but once you delve deep into them and critically think about it, you quickly realize how deceptive and slick the enemy can be. Yet many Christians, me included; tend to be drawn into challenging him on some issues.
They include: 1) A hypotheses that supports that God does not exist. 2) Saying that morality isn't produced by a religion or having faith (which stands true). 3) That we can be happy without the worship of God, or a religious stance (Maybe or maybe not). 4) The burden of proof.
5) If God why evil?
6) Interpreting Facts and DATA.
7) God? Which God? Though Dawkins mkes his points, I would also like to make mine. And one of them is a hypothesis that supports the existence of a creator.
Here I will make a list on why they are wrong about how they view what we believe, and how I know that God is real, not only on a universal scale, but also in my life. 1) Where is the proof of your God?
A good question I would presume. Lets check out this hypothesis supporting the evidence of a creator.
Dawkins states: The evidence of God is not disprovable, but he reverts to form and states that it is improbable. In other words, he doesn't believe that there is a God because of reasons a. b. & c. Here is the reason why we should believe in the existence of God. Either... 1. God created the universe or 2. He didn't. There are no other possibilities. Within the second possibility there is ONLY two possibilities. a) Either the universe has been here forever, or b) It had a beginning. There are no other possibilities. A is impossible: All energy in the universe would have burned up and converted to heat, light, & residue. B is impossible: As it requires nothing to turn into everything. A & B are impossible so is 2 impossible. Therefore 1 is true by elimination. 2) "I don't need God to be good" or "Morality isn't produced by religion". It may be true that we don't have to have faith to have morals, but morals are NOT man made. They come from God, whether you recognize him as the source of those morals or not, the fact still remains. People in and out of church will let you down. That is no reason to walk out on God because of people! Have faith, not for morals nor people, but because of God and his love for you. Being a good person is not bad, but it is only faith in the son of God, the blood of Jesus Christ, and his Holy Spirit that will bring us salvation, not being a good person. 3) Happiness without the creator?
There was an atheist that once told me: "I don't need that hope to enjoy this life." Well, there is a pleasure in sin for a season. Yet for so many years I said "He is the only thing that keeps me going in this life". Then a man came to me and asked me: "But what other reason is there to live for? There is no other reason." So my response is this: From the first time someone states within his or her heart that 'there is no God', they become cursed for the rest of their lives with a possessed nature to prove a reason for their existence without him. If they only would take that same energy and rely on HIM and worship HIM, they would be broken from that curse. Because, really; there is no other reason to live but him. And to take God out of the equation would steal all hope and future from humanity. For as Paul said "If I had hope only in this life, I would be among men most miserable".
1) Where is the proof of God? Here I supplied a hypothesis that supports the existence of God.
2) A frequent quote made by atheists "Morality isn't a product of religion". It's true. It isn't. I want to you know that though we may not need to have faith to have morals, morals are not man made. They come from the creator.
3) Can we be happy without God the creator? Maybe there might be a pleasure in sin for a season, but sin brings misery as an aftermath. Does that define real happiness? And without him, what do we have? Without him, how can we be truely fullfilled?
So now, lets focus on questions 4-6.
4) The Burden of Proof is on you.
Now this is what we hear about alot in the evidence argument. The burden of proof. Have you ever had someone tell you: "The burden of proof is on you"? Let me tell you, it is not. Here is why: All sinners respond the same way. Evidence doesn't change hearts, dead hearts which we (Christians) all had; will always choose what they love and that is never Jesus. Not apart from a miracle. To think differently would be like Atheists saying: "If we just stir up dead inorganic stardust around over millions of years it produces life. Evidence doesn't change the composition of dead soiled hearts. I think this is clearly substantiated with the fact that not everyone believed in the evidence that Jesus provided. even though they saw him walk on water, raise the dead, produce food from thin air, turn water into wine, heal the blind, cast out demons and predict future events such as his death, burial, and resurrection. Even some of his disciples doubted after they saw him return from the grave. However, we do preach this, the good news of Christ crucified for our sins, buried and raised from the dead appears to be how the scriptures teach that dead stone hearts wake up. You can stack all the evidence you want, but if the gospel isn't heard, you are just stirring dead stardust hoping for life; which we can observe life never comes from non-life.
5) If God, why evil?
The idea of evil presupposes that something is not right. Therefore evil is evidence of a good and right God. Evil is present for man, NOT God, perverted what was created to be right.
It has been evident throughout scripture that the good and right God has repeatedly urged mankind to turn from their wicked ways - to repent.
When evil befalls you, know where the blame rest - on mankind, NOT God.
It is in the fact that there is evil that there is a God who is out there you can turn to.
6) Athiest quote: "Where is the evidence for God? My trust is in science, not religious text books. And do we see God in science?"
Here is the problem that we all contend with: People bring their beliefs and views with them when they analyze facts and data. Facts need to be interpreted, and our world and life views effect those interpretations. Everyone wants to look at Scientists like they are Joe Friday from the TV show Dragnet. “Just the facts Ms.” But they aren’t, and neither are we, to some extent; at least some of the time as Christians. Since all systems of thought, including mathematics; are based upon a few assumptions which we assume to be true without proof, since we can’t prove them; then we have to call upon the field of something called “Prep-suppositional vs. Evidential apologetics. Presuppositions are, of course, what we start off with. Many I have argues with, who believe in Macroevolution, have told me to my face that one of the reasons why they wont’ listen to me is, like that one man said long ago: “Hey look lady, the idea of an intelligent being, that has always existed---making everything by himself is absurd. I believe it all happened through natural processes---with pre-existing matter, and random chance, as its guide; I am objective. You’re just an unscientific, non-objective, religious moron, who is trying to interpret the universe with her feelings!” Well, he did hurt my feelings some, but then I told him about the famous story of Isaac Newton and what he stated to his one friend who was an atheist, after he built a model of our solar system. The friend walked in and said: “That is a beautiful model of the solar system. Who build it?” Newton replied: “No one!” When his friend started to get angry with Sir Isaac Newton, he finally said: “Why no one built it. It just appeared in the room and made itself.” His friend then began to laugh. Now do you see how our presuppositions and ideas influence how we interpret the facts?
Now for another question atheists ask: "God? Which god?" See here!