# There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.



## Greg (May 26, 2008)

Review: There Is A God


----------



## Hippo (May 26, 2008)

I really dislike the apologetic approach that argues for a god. 

I have sat through apologetic lectures that argue against atheism and use Flew as a prime example that theism is reasonable, but it only begs the question of why the Christian God. 

If we argue for theism we cannot complain if people get to a theistic position and then decide which god is most reasonable for them to believe in. This is as bad as atheism.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 26, 2008)

Hippo said:


> I really dislike the apologetic approach that argues for a god.
> 
> I have sat through apologetic lectures that argue against atheism and use Flew as a prime example that theism is reasonable, but it only begs the question of why the Christian God.
> 
> If we argue for theism we cannot complain if people get to a theistic position and then decide which god is most reasonable for them to believe in. This is as bad as atheism.


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 26, 2008)

Hippo said:


> I really dislike the apologetic approach that argues for a god.
> 
> I have sat through apologetic lectures that argue against atheism and use Flew as a prime example that theism is reasonable, but it only begs the question of why the Christian God.
> 
> If we argue for theism we cannot complain if people get to a theistic position and then decide which god is most reasonable for them to believe in. This is as bad as atheism.



There are no apologetic approaches that argue only for "a" god. Some just take longer to get to the conclusion of the god or God in question.

CT


----------



## turmeric (May 26, 2008)

> The irony of the atheism of Flew was that his father was a minister of great commitment and conviction of biblical truth


 
Are we seeing the return of a covenant child?


----------



## Anton Bruckner (May 26, 2008)

we shouldn't even be arguing whether God exists or not. King David says, "Only a fool says in in heart there is no God". A person that is of such a belief is already hardened and determined against all light of conscience, nature and word. I simply walk away from Atheists. In due time God will either flay them in His mercy or in His wrath. Atheists are presumptuous impious and stubborn human beings.


----------



## staythecourse (May 26, 2008)

> Are we seeing the return of a covenant child?



I would like to hear a big "Jesus is Lord" from the man to see the work of saving grace in him.

If he should come to Christ, it would remind me of the wandering Augustine made before his conversion.


----------



## turmeric (May 26, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> > Are we seeing the return of a covenant child?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I didn't say he'd arrived yet! I hope he does return.


----------



## etexas (May 26, 2008)

Hey, still better than where he was!


----------



## christianyouth (May 26, 2008)

Mike, I agree. Every apologetic system that I've seen used in atheist debates usually points to Deism, Cosmological argument, argument from design, presuppositionalism(nothing distinctly Christian in this apologetic method), etc. I think we need to be honest with the naturalitstic materalists and tell them how it is, we believe because of _subjective religious experience_, or put another way, we believe because God granted us faith, because He revealed Himself to us by His Spirit. Doesn't make an academically respectable religion, but I think it's in line with 1 Cor 1:18-3. The Gospel is foolishness, except to those who are called.

As others have said, Flew isn't really any closer to being a Christian. It's no problem disproving materialism, but proving Christianity? It can't be done. It's foolishness to the Greek and scandalous to the Jew.


----------



## Zenas (May 26, 2008)

etexas said:


> Hey, still better than where he was!



Why? Both deists and atheists are rebels who hate God and will be punished for their sins. 

He was outside of Christ before, he's outside of Him now. Christ is all that matters.


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 26, 2008)

Zenas said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, still better than where he was!
> ...



The only way that you could refute that he is better off is if you are willing to say, one's path to orthodox Christianity is the same going from, a form of deism or straight out and out atheism.

CT


----------



## Pergamum (May 27, 2008)

When i was agnostic the arguments for God helped me. If God is God then He is a rational God and I thought Christianity was irrational until I read some Plantinga, and Aquinas and others.


----------



## Stephen (May 27, 2008)

Hippo said:


> I really dislike the apologetic approach that argues for a god.
> 
> I have sat through apologetic lectures that argue against atheism and use Flew as a prime example that theism is reasonable, but it only begs the question of why the Christian God.
> 
> If we argue for theism we cannot complain if people get to a theistic position and then decide which god is most reasonable for them to believe in. This is as bad as atheism.



Dr. Sproul was my apologetics professor in seminary and I certainly did not follow his approach to the subject. He subscribes to the so-called classical approach of Aquainas and dispises the presuppositional approach. If you listen to his lecture his argument is based on probability. It argues for the existence of God, but not the LORD God who created the heavens and the earth.


----------



## Stephen (May 27, 2008)

Anton Bruckner said:


> we shouldn't even be arguing whether God exists or not. King David says, "Only a fool says in in heart there is no God". A person that is of such a belief is already hardened and determined against all light of conscience, nature and word. I simply walk away from Atheists. In due time God will either flay them in His mercy or in His wrath. Atheists are presumptuous impious and stubborn human beings.




 Atheism is not an issue of the mind but the heart. You do not need to convince a person of the existence of God anymore than you have to convince them of energy. They reject God, as Paul teaches in Romans one, because of their sin. They will not have God ruling over them, but it does not matter what they think, because they are still under His sovereignity.


----------



## Zenas (May 27, 2008)

Yeah, Thomism seems extremely weak in my humble opinion. While the arguments have their uses, I think they ultimately fail to lead one to a concept of God the Omnipotent. Where Thomism is a .22 revolver, presuppositionalism is a Howitzer. 

(I know you guys like gun analogies.)


----------



## Stephen (May 27, 2008)

Zenas said:


> Yeah, Thomism seems extremely weak in my humble opinion. While the arguments have their uses, I think they ultimately fail to lead one to a concept of God the Omnipotent. Where Thomism is a .22 revolver, presuppositionalism is a Howitzer.
> 
> (I know you guys like gun analogies.)




I like what a student of VanTil's said, "Presuppositionalists do not reject arguments for the existence of God, but that is not their starting point."


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 27, 2008)

Hippo said:


> I really dislike the apologetic approach that argues for a god.
> 
> I have sat through apologetic lectures that argue against atheism and use Flew as a prime example that theism is reasonable, but it only begs the question of why the Christian God.
> 
> If we argue for theism we cannot complain if people get to a theistic position and then decide which god is most reasonable for them to believe in. This is as bad as atheism.



Precisely, according to that apologetic method, all you have done is moved someone from one form of idolatry (atheism) to another (a belief in a god of their own imagination).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 27, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> When i was agnostic the arguments for God helped me. If God is God then He is a rational God and I thought Christianity was irrational until I read some Plantinga, and Aquinas and others.



The problem is though that the arguments for the existence of God only work if you presuppose that God exists.


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 27, 2008)

etexas said:


> Hey, still better than where he was!



Maybe not. It just appears that he is a further away from the smoke than before, but the flames are just as real.

His revelation must lead to conversion not self-justification.


----------



## etexas (May 27, 2008)

Zenas said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, still better than where he was!
> ...


Withdrawn with an apology.


----------



## sastark (May 27, 2008)

christianyouth said:


> Every apologetic system that I've seen used in atheist debates usually points to Deism, Cosmological argument, argument from design, presuppositionalism(nothing distinctly Christian in this apologetic method), etc.



If your presuppostional apologetic is arguing for Deism rather than the God of the Bible, then you are arguing from the wrong presuppositions.


----------



## Zenas (May 27, 2008)

I'm horribly confused. I apologize and ask your forgiveness if I've offended you in the way I made my point etexas.


----------



## christianyouth (May 27, 2008)

Hey Seth, the point is that what Christians know as presuppositional apologetics can work for any theological system. What I've seen with presuppositionalism, is that it leaves atheists flabbergasted and defeated. It doesn't move them any closer to Christianity, because there is nothing distinctly Christian in the presuppositional arguments. The TAG argument, for example, could easily be adopted by Jews or Muslims. 

If you know what is distinctly Christian about presuppositionalism, or give me an example of how presuppositionalism has to prove a theistic god and not a deistic god, let me know, because I've just never seen any presuppositional arguments used in debates(either on internet forums or in Bahnsen's debates) that could be considered as arguments for Christian theism and not a generic theism/deism.


----------



## Zenas (May 27, 2008)

I think some are confusing the purpose of apologetics and evangelism.

Personally, and I think I have quite a few on my side including Bahnsen and Calvin, I think the purpose of apologetics is to shut the mouth of the unbeliever, not convert them.


----------



## Greg (May 27, 2008)

Zenas said:


> I think some are confusing the purpose of apologetics and evangelism.
> 
> Personally, and I think I have quite a few on my side including Bahnsen and Calvin, I think the purpose of apologetics is to shut the mouth of the unbeliever, not convert them.



I agree. I believe Bahnsen said that same thing before. The aim of apologetics is to silence the mouth of the unbeliever (1 Peter 3:15)...it's God alone who can open the heart...and He does so through the preached word. Through apologetics, the unbeliever's mouth is silenced by demonstrating the rationality of the Christian faith and the irrationality of their own. Though unbelievers view the Christian faith as foolishness, the faith itself is not. Scripture and the Christian faith are not indifferent to rationality and logic.

From what I've read on presuppositionalism thus far (and I am fairly new to the study) it is distinctly Christian in that it views and addresses the unbeliever as one who is spiritually dead in sin and not able to rightly respond to God. It's their presuppositions as unregenerate human beings that actively suppress the truth of God, and that in spite of the irrationality of their position. If you just throw factual evidence at them, they'll simply interpret that evidence according to their underlying assumptions. It's their assumptions that need to be exposed for what they are.

As far as presuppositionalism not being able to address non-Christian religions as it does atheism (thus distinguishing Christianity apart from other religions), Bahnsen stated that other world religions are approached essentially the same way (presuppositionally speaking) through an internal critique of their belief system.

Can the Muslims, Mormons, etc...turn the tables and use the presuppositional approach to apologetics in defense of their own faith/position? I don't believe so, because their own position cannot stand under such an internal critique...the Christian faith can.


----------



## christianyouth (May 27, 2008)

Greg, the point I was making is that Christianity _isn't_ rational to the unconverted, therefor our apologetics won't stop their mouths. If someone could give me an example of an apologetic argument for Christianity that does that, that would be great, but so far I've only seen arguments the existence of *a* god, and never one that proves the existence of *the* God.


----------



## Hippo (May 27, 2008)

christianyouth said:


> Greg, the point I was making is that Christianity _isn't_ rational to the unconverted, therefor our apologetics won't stop their mouths. If someone could give me an example of an apologetic argument for Christianity that does that, that would be great, but so far I've only seen arguments the existence of *a* god, and never one that proves the existence of *the* God.



Bahnsen repeatedly argues that there are internal inconsistencies in Islam etc that disprove there claims. You can only refute other religions on a case by case level.

Unbelievers do understand the rationality of the gospel at some deep level but are in sinful rebellion against reality. Apologetics may not stop all their mouths but the real aim is to glorify God and preach the Gospel. This can only occur when the Christian Gospel rather than a general theistic position is expounded.

The whole point of presupisitonalism is that it presoposes the Christian God, *that is the presuposition*. The reason why other religions cannot argue presupositionaly is that they are at heart arbitrary and inconsistent. 

The point that I am trying to make is that to argue presupositionally you choose your own presupositions and for a Christian this has to be a Christian worldview, there is no justification for any other basis of presuposition. To do so is not Christian.


----------



## Zenas (May 27, 2008)

christianyouth said:


> Greg, the point I was making is that Christianity _isn't_ rational to the unconverted, therefor our apologetics won't stop their mouths. If someone could give me an example of an apologetic argument for Christianity that does that, that would be great, but so far I've only seen arguments the existence of *a* god, and never one that proves the existence of *the* God.



To echo the above post, Christianity is rational to the unbeliever. This will not manifest itself as intellectual assent or saving faith (except where God has already been) due to the fact that they are in rebellion and are deceving themselves. The denial of rationality doesn't make it any less rational.

To quote Lewis, "The unbeliver can no more diminish the glory of God by denying Him than the madman can diminish the light of the Sun by scribbling 'darkness' on the wall."


----------



## Greg (May 27, 2008)

christianyouth said:


> Greg, the point I was making is that Christianity _isn't_ rational to the unconverted, therefor our apologetics won't stop their mouths.



Christianity _appears_ to be irrational to the unbeliever because of the ignorance in them due to the hardness of their hearts. However Christianity itself (objectively speaking) is not irrational. It's the only faith/worldview that can account for the world and reality in which we live. The reason Christianity appears to be irrational to an unbeliever is because of his/her sinful presuppositions. This is the whole point. It doesn't matter if those sinful presuppositions are atheistic or theistic (non-Christian). Those presuppositions can still be equally addressed showing the validity of the Christian faith as set against all other faiths.



> If someone could give me an example of an apologetic argument for Christianity that does that, that would be great, but so far I've only seen arguments the existence of *a* god, and never one that proves the existence of *the* God.



Actually there's plenty of evidence and strong arguments for the Christian God, it's just that the unbeliever doesn't _like_ the types of evidence or arguments that the Christian offers...that God Himself has made known. Not _liking_ the types of evidence and arguments we offer isn't the same as an argument against the Christian position. And it's certainly not a justification before God for one's continued unbelief.


----------



## staythecourse (May 27, 2008)

turmeric said:


> staythecourse said:
> 
> 
> > > Are we seeing the return of a covenant child?
> ...



I hear you, Meg. I just hate when people get soooo close. It's just as bad as being a full-fledged Atheist. It's grieving, so I hope He gets called to Christ!


----------



## staythecourse (May 27, 2008)

Stephen said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> > I really dislike the apologetic approach that argues for a god.
> ...



That stinks. Presuppositionalism is a humble approach to Scripture, God then Christ. How can a man not get puffed up if he figures out God exists.


----------



## puritan lad (May 27, 2008)

Greg said:


> christianyouth said:
> 
> 
> > Greg, the point I was making is that Christianity _isn't_ rational to the unconverted, therefor our apologetics won't stop their mouths.
> ...



Presuppositionalism (TAG) is the only method that I've seen that makes the atheist defend his worldview. All other methods begin by assuming that naturalism is correct, and then try to prove the existence of God from that standpoint. Therefore, the purpose of the presuppositional approach isn't to show that Christianity is logical, but that atheism is illogical, thereby closing his mouth.

Having said that, any apologetical method should be bathed in prayer with a heavy dose of gospel. It does no good to strip the unbeliever naked if we can't give them white garments to put on. In fact, they will become seven times worse.


----------

