NO PROOF BEYOND THE EVIDENCE
By: Robert T. Lee
There’s no greater argument for the existence of God than the truth of His
existence. Atheists completely discount this truth, while challenging every
true Christian to present proof.
This is one of the earlier articles by Mr Lee. I am finally catching up with his 'back catalogue' :)
The problem with this 'evidence' is that 'saying so' just isn't good enough!
Since it is impossible to prove the existence of God beyond the fact itself
and beyond the overwhelming evidence in all of God’s creation, the
challenge that atheists make to Christians is both a foolish challenge and
an impossible task for the Christian.
Atheists are logical minded people who like to question existence and science. We don't always take information at face value and try to see both sides of an argument. If there was overwhelming evidence of a supreme being, we would believe.
Since atheists recognize that it is impossible to prove the existence of
God beyond the truth itself and beyond the overwhelming evidence they
deliberately discount, they blindly and deceptively regard such
impossibility as real proof that God doe not exist.
No. There is considerable evidence against the existence of wonderous supernatural mythological deities. Evolution is just one of the many thorns in a christian's paw. Admittedly it isn't perfect but no-one would be so naive as to claim it so. Whereas the bible holds *all* the answers. (This is biting sarcasm by the way.)
This deceptive principle has been exemplified time after time in courts of
law. For example: A person commits a very heinous crime. All the
evidence that proves the person’s guilt is presented in court by the
prosecutor. The evidence overwhelmingly proves the person’s guilt.
However, the criminal denies he committed the crime, and his lawyers,
while seeking to deceptively prove his innocence, do all they can to
discount the evidence presented by the prosecutor. And while
discounting the evidence, the defense attorneys constantly challenges the
prosecutor to prove their client is guilty.
What the defense attorneys do is cleverly discount the evidence in the
minds of the jurors and shifts focus from the overwhelming evidence to
challenging the prosecutor to prove their client’s guilt to the jurors beyond
the evidence. This becomes an impossible task and the jurors are
deceived into regarding this impossibility as an inability of the prosecutor
to prove that the criminal is guilty. Therefore the jury regards the criminal
as not guilty. Juries are deceived by this diabolical tactic all the time.
Should this mean that we should ignore the 'innocent until proven guilty'!!! That is an extremely dangerous path to take. "If one innocent man is jailed then the system is flawed." I heard that quote somewhere and it's a sad fact the the judicial system has it's downfalls. But what then the alternative? There is no fairer system. Perhaps you would like to go back to the Dark ages and the time of the Inquisitions? Throw a woman in the water and if she drowns she is not a witch? I don't think so.
The prime debate between true Christians and atheists and other non
believers is whether God exists. The evidence that God exists is
overwhelming; but atheists discount the evidence while seeking to get
Christians to prove His existence beyond the discounted evidence.
This evidence is the bible? A collection of contradicting tales, many of which have been shown to be ridiculous/ racist/ sexist/ badly flawed?
The Turin Shroud? Carbon dated to be shown as a Medieval hoax.
Creationism? Now that's just getting silly! Ahem. Dinosaurs?
There is no proof. And that is why more and more people take control of their own lives and not believe in a mythology that is well past it's sell by date. If there was proof, there would be no atheists.
BACK
I would like to make it clear that all texts by Mr Lee are not altered in any way to make my claims any stronger. Spelling mistakes are as they were in the originals. And the intellectual copyright for each article remains with Mr Lee