# For those who are a bit more knowledgeable than I...



## steven-nemes (Dec 18, 2008)

...what exactly is the unbeliever's philosophy here? How do you respond?


I proposed that (when being told the entire concept of God is nebulous) God is a being separate from creation, who is very powerful, very intelligent, and communicates. 

He replied "That's nebulous because we don't have the means to recognize those attributes and actions as being "godly". Give me attributes that we can actually verify on our own, so that we don't get fooled by fake-gods who are only telling tall-tales."

I didn't understand how that was nebulous and he replied:

"It is vague because we can't verify if someone who makes such claims is actually telling the truth. How do we recognize a god, a true god if he stands before us? Superman could pull off many of the same feats God performed in the Bible, but he isn't a god, right?"

I don't know how to start with this... any help?


----------



## Whitefield (Dec 18, 2008)

Also ask him what constitutes veracity. Methinks he will appeal to the 5 senses. Then ask him which of the 5 senses directly verify gravity.


----------



## BobVigneault (Dec 18, 2008)

Ask him what evidence he WOULD accept for the existence of the God of the Bible. Many times if the atheist is honest he will say there is nothing you could show me and therefore betraying his assumptions. However, asking him what evidence he would accept gives more opportunities to demonstrate how God HAS revealed himself.

Even evil is an argument for the existence of God.

For evil to exist there must be good,
for good and evil to be meaningful there must be a law,
for a law to exist there must be a transcendent law giver,
there is, God.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 18, 2008)

Ask him if there is such a thing as truth.
Then ask him to prove it.

Ask him if the statement "murder is bad" is a truth.
Then ask him to prove it if he considers it a truth.


----------



## steven-nemes (Dec 18, 2008)

Is there any specific philosophical system tied together with this kind of reasoning, the kind he is espousing?


----------



## steven-nemes (Dec 18, 2008)

Not exactly specific, though, as that could accurately describe just about every philosophical system in all of history!


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 18, 2008)

Steven, all the answers so far have been excellent. Ultimately, he is requiring God to come before the bar of his personal, autonomous reason. That is the all-important criteria for him. Attack that, and the "nebulous" argument falls to the ground. God is not required to satisfy autonomous reason. This guy has an awful lot of faith in his own reason. By what argument can he sustain his own judgeship?


----------



## BobVigneault (Dec 18, 2008)

rationalism
skepticism
post-modernism
evidentialism

all these make up his philosophy and his argument also demonstrates the inability of these worldviews to answer questions pertaining to a transcendent Creator.



steven-nemes said:


> Is there any specific philosophical system tied together with this kind of reasoning, the kind he is espousing?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Dec 18, 2008)

steven-nemes said:


> Is there any specific philosophical system tied together with this kind of reasoning, the kind he is espousing?



Agnostic skepticism.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Dec 18, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> steven-nemes said:
> 
> 
> > Is there any specific philosophical system tied together with this kind of reasoning, the kind he is espousing?
> ...



Exactly--but remember, the "Agnostic Skeptic" can know, based on his system, absolutely nothing, including the veracity of his conversation with you.


----------



## steven-nemes (Dec 18, 2008)

Ah see I need to practice my presuppositional arguing. I can see now that he was assuming that he _can_ know things, but of course, this is unjustified on the basis of his presuppositions. Thanks to everyone!


----------

