# Is "proof" beyond faith?



## amishrockstar

Is it possible to prove/demonstrate the existence of God to an atheist (i.e. someone who doesn't accept the Bible as "proof")? If so, how can it be done effectively without using the Bible? If not, does that bother you, or are you comfortable with just saying it all comes down to "faith?"

Is there "one" open-and-shut case for Christianity, or do we have multiple apologetic methods because there are multiple personalities and ways to persuade people?

Since Christians believe by "faith," is trying to offer evidence (i.e. physical/rational) sinful?

Thanks!


----------



## rickclayfan

Nature and rational argumentation affirm the existence of a higher being(s), but Scripture (its qualities) is the strongest argument in favor of the Christian God being the true deity. Then again, without regeneration, no amount of rational argumentation will suffice to persuade an unregenerate man. The ultimate foundation of that persuasion is faith. The faith of a regenerate man is not a mere intellectual notion, but a subjective organ of vision and perception.


----------



## MW

Let's make sure the field is level. The atheist has as much faith as the Christian. All "proof" will ultimately depend upon beliefs for validation.

As a starting-point, I would observe that beliefs themselves are unseen. The very idea that men have beliefs requires belief. Ergo, any argument which begins with the premise that one can only believe what he sees is self-refuting.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## amishrockstar

rickclayfan said:


> Nature and rational argumentation affirm the existence of a higher being(s), but Scripture (its qualities) is the strongest argument in favor of the Christian God being the true deity. Then again, without regeneration, no amount of rational argumentation will suffice to persuade an unregenerate man. The ultimate foundation of that persuasion is faith. The faith of a regenerate man is not a mere intellectual notion, but a subjective organ of vision and perception.



Could you elaborate on "how" Scripture is the strongest argument in favor of God? I don't suppose you mean by its mere existence, right? Do you mean that if an atheist reads a portion of it it proves God's existence somehow? 

Sorry, a little unclear about what you mean. 

Also, if faith is "subjective," how could you argue with others (e.g. Muslims or Mormons) who say that they have "faith" as well? In other words, if you're discussing the reasons for why you believe in the one true God, and you state that you have a subjective faith in Him, then couldn't they just argue in the same manner? 

Thanks!


----------



## amishrockstar

MW said:


> Let's make sure the field is level. The atheist has as much faith as the Christian. All "proof" will ultimately depend upon beliefs for validation.
> 
> As a starting-point, I would observe that beliefs themselves are unseen. The very idea that men have beliefs requires belief. Ergo, any argument which begins with the premise that one can only believe what he sees is self-refuting.



I thought only Christians could have "faith," no? In what way does an atheist have faith? And if you're saying they have a different kind of faith, then isn't that equivocating on the term? 

I'm not sure that I follow that "beliefs require belief." That sounds like a tautology. Beliefs can be founded on evidence, reasons, or experiences, can't they?


----------



## rickclayfan

amishrockstar said:


> Could you elaborate on "how" Scripture is the strongest argument in favor of God? I don't suppose you mean by its mere existence, right? Do you mean that if an atheist reads a portion of it it proves God's existence somehow?
> 
> Sorry, a little unclear about what you mean.
> 
> Also, if faith is "subjective," how could you argue with others (e.g. Muslims or Mormons) who say that they have "faith" as well? In other words, if you're discussing the reasons for why you believe in the one true God, and you state that you have a subjective faith in Him, then couldn't they just argue in the same manner?
> 
> Thanks!



The subjective perception is not an argument for His existence. It is invalid to argue your position merely because you feel it to be true. My point is that it is the ultimate ground of the belief in God's existence. The following illustration was used by certain authors: once there was a philosopher arguing that motion does not exist. So, a man stood up and walk and thereby refuted the philosopher's claim. In the same way, a believer simply knows that God exists by personal and subjective experience; he does not need rational argumentation. This perception cannot be used as an argument, of course. A believer does not believe because he is persuaded by arguments and reason, but because he knows. Arguments and reason simply serve to prop up and strengthen that persuasion.

I mention the subjective nature of faith merely to show that reasoning is insufficient to persuade an unbeliever. This is not because the belief in God is irrational, but because (1) we cannot presuppose that reason is a satisfactory intermediary in this discourse (on what grounds do we suppose reason to be the ultimate source/propounder of truth?) and (2) our mind is darkened by sin.

In regard to Scripture, I do not mean that it is the mere reading of it that will convert an atheist. Instead, Scripture possesses certain qualities that serve to support its divine origin. These qualities I wrote of in a previous post:
https://puritanboard.com/threads/existence-of-a-god-to-the-god-of-the-bible.92353/#post-1127952


----------



## MW

amishrockstar said:


> I thought only Christians could have "faith," no? In what way does an atheist have faith? And if you're saying they have a different kind of faith, then isn't that equivocating on the term?



On the level of argument, an atheist is said to "believe" God does not exist in the very same sense that a Christian is said to "believe" God exists. There is no equivocation. The nature of their opposition depends on using the word "believe" in the same sense in both instances.



amishrockstar said:


> I'm not sure that I follow that "beliefs require belief." That sounds like a tautology. Beliefs can be founded on evidence, reasons, or experiences, can't they?



Can you see your beliefs? Yet you believe you have them. Why? What makes you think they are not electrical impulses flooding your brain in an unusually high frequency? Are your beliefs free? or are they caused by something else? is this something else material or spiritual? If they are caused by something else what relation do they bear to evidence, reasons, or experiences? But if they are free how can they be founded on anything? Assumptions abound in the use of the word "belief."


----------



## rickclayfan

MW said:


> an atheist is said to "believe" God does not exist in the very same sense that a Christian is said to "believe" God exists.


I would have to kindly disagree. The negation of belief is not technically belief. I would say this situation is not a battle of faiths, but a battle of preconceived notions and philosophical foundations (the atheist believes in a rational/empirical system, while the Christian goes beyond that).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

rickclayfan said:


> I would have to kindly disagree. The negation of belief is not technically belief. I would say this situation is not a battle of faiths, but a battle of preconceived notions and philosophical foundations (the atheist believes in a rational/empirical system, while the Christian goes beyond that).



Technically, perhaps not, especially once you dig deeper and learn that the atheist has no foundation for any belief whatever. But, as noted, on the level of argument, the opposition of the one to the other depends on the univocal use of "belief."


----------



## rickclayfan

MW said:


> Technically, perhaps not, especially once you dig deeper and learn that the atheist has no foundation for any belief whatever. But, as noted, on the level of argument, the opposition of the one to the other depends on the univocal use of "belief."


I see, thanks for clearing it up.


----------



## mgkortus

amishrockstar said:


> If not, does that bother you, or are you comfortable with just saying it all comes down to "faith?"



I think it is important to have a clear understanding of faith. Most often when an unbeliever speaks of faith, he is referring to something you just accept because it cannot be be proven. 
However, for the believer, the object of our faith is so obvious it is beyond proof!


----------



## amishrockstar

rickclayfan said:


> The subjective perception is not an argument for His existence. It is invalid to argue your position merely because you feel it to be true. My point is that it is the ultimate ground of the belief in God's existence. The following illustration was used by certain authors: once there was a philosopher arguing that motion does not exist. So, a man stood up and walk and thereby refuted the philosopher's claim. In the same way, a believer simply knows that God exists by personal and subjective experience; he does not need rational argumentation. This perception cannot be used as an argument, of course. A believer does not believe because he is persuaded by arguments and reason, but because he knows. Arguments and reason simply serve to prop up and strengthen that persuasion.
> 
> I mention the subjective nature of faith merely to show that reasoning is insufficient to persuade an unbeliever. This is not because the belief in God is irrational, but because (1) we cannot presuppose that reason is a satisfactory intermediary in this discourse (on what grounds do we suppose reason to be the ultimate source/propounder of truth?) and (2) our mind is darkened by sin.
> 
> In regard to Scripture, I do not mean that it is the mere reading of it that will convert an atheist. Instead, Scripture possesses certain qualities that serve to support its divine origin. These qualities I wrote of in a previous post:
> https://puritanboard.com/threads/existence-of-a-god-to-the-god-of-the-bible.92353/#post-1127952



Thanks for the generous response! 

I'm just not quite sure there would be much there for a conversation with an atheist though. If believers believe only because they "know," then there isn't much reasoning or discussion to be had. An atheist won't accept that anymore than we might accept a Mormon saying that he/she knows the book of Mormon is right because he/she felt a burning in the bosom. 

About the scriptural qualities, how would you convince a skeptic who says that Muslims make similar claims for the Quran: It's highly advanced, it's full of wisdom, there is history and unity, etc.?

Thanks again!


----------



## amishrockstar

MW said:


> On the level of argument, an atheist is said to "believe" God does not exist in the very same sense that a Christian is said to "believe" God exists. There is no equivocation. The nature of their opposition depends on using the word "believe" in the same sense in both instances.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you see your beliefs? Yet you believe you have them. Why? What makes you think they are not electrical impulses flooding your brain in an unusually high frequency? Are your beliefs free? or are they caused by something else? is this something else material or spiritual? If they are caused by something else what relation do they bear to evidence, reasons, or experiences? But if they are free how can they be founded on anything? Assumptions abound in the use of the word "belief."



Thanks!

I still don't quite understand though. The faith or "belief" that a believer has is "unto salvation." How is that anyway similar to the "faith" an atheist supposedly has? 

Many atheists say they have a "lack of belief in God." It's not an active faith/belief as a Christian has. Maybe it's a difference between "strong" vs. "weak" atheism? Strong atheists say something like "there is no god and I can prove it," while weak atheists would say something like, "I haven't seen any convincing evidence for..." 

"No," I can't see my beliefs, but I don't have to "believe" that I have beliefs either. They are there as a matter of experience and thinking through issues. It seems like "belief" is being used in different ways, and I hate to throw out the term equivocation again. 

Beliefs, whatever that may mean, I suppose can be formed by evidence, reasons, or experiences. And "yes" I do think our brains play a part in what we do and don't believe. 

Anywho, thanks for sharing your thoughts!


----------



## Afterthought

amishrockstar said:


> Is it possible to prove/demonstrate the existence of God to an atheist (i.e. someone who doesn't accept the Bible as "proof")? If so, how can it be done effectively without using the Bible? If not, does that bother you, or are you comfortable with just saying it all comes down to "faith?


It is (but it's obviously impossible to prove the God of the **Bible** exists without using the **Bible**), but by "proof," I mean proof in an objective sense: the atheist generally will not accept the proof. It is not that something is wrong with the proof itself--whether in terms of logic or evidence--but the deceitful heart will prevent an unbeliever from thinking clearly enough in this matter to be persuaded. I think the best sort of proof to use will vary from person to person and situation to situation. However, I think the goal should be to (1) present the objective proof, regardless of whether the unbeliever will accept it, and (2) show the unbeliever is unrighteously suppressing the truth. A way to accomplish both goals at once is to work with the sorts of arguments that show the unbeliever's beliefs lead to destruction, whereas the unbeliever's false beliefs assume the existence of the things the unbeliever seeks to disprove, i.e., presuppositional arguments such as Rev. Winzer has brought forth. Try not to get lost in details; it probably suffices to show the existence of an infinite, eternal, unchangeable, personal Mind, since that opens up the possibility of revelation (from there, you can go to the Bible as a candidate source of revelation and find out more about this Mind).

Having presented the proof and done some work to clear objections (the unbeliever will always have more objections; there will come a point in the conversation where it will become clear the wicked heart is being unreasonable; that is when you know you have done all you can so far as arguments from the light of nature go), one should move on to speak plainly to the reality of the situation: the unbeliever is a sinner (make use of the law of God in showing this) and Christ offers the sinner salvation. Oddly (although not really oddly), at this point in a conversation, some unbelievers will talk as though what you say is true. It is the Word of God that is the means of grace that brings salvation, so it is best to move conversation to this point as quickly as one can. However, it depends on the situation: some people have never heard a proper rational defense of the Christian religion; since this unbeliever will need to love God with his or her mind, it is important that they have the arguments. When the Spirit works, the truth of the arguments will then become plain to them. Other people have heard plenty of rational argumentation but have a surprisingly weak grasp of Christian truth or have theological hangups (e.g., they might object from the problem of evil or something; these can be smokescreens, but they give you something that you can use for discussion). Still others have heard enough and simply need to be reminded by you again. One should carefully do whatever seems best for the situation, but in all cases, one should still move quickly to the Word of God itself.


----------



## JTB.SDG

I think most of the time we need to just use the weapon God gave us. The sword of God's Word is sharp; and here's the wonderful thing--it never asks anyone's permission to work. "Faith [that the Bible is God's Word, that Jesus is the Savior, etc] comes by hearing", not before hearing. Talk about sin; talk about Christ. Talk about how Jesus said in John 3:19 that the reason we sin is that naturally, everyone actually LOVES sin. Ask them if that isn't their experience too (be honest!)? 

I live in a majority Muslim country; a place where almost everyone affirms the existence of God, but denies the authority of the Bible. Many times I begin to think, "I need to convince his person of the truth of the Bible before I can share the Bible with them in any way that they are going to receive." But it's simply not true. The Word of God works effectually with or without our permission. In this sense, people may (and do) believe in Christ actually before they believe in the Bible. I know this is a little different than your question, but maybe there's some application.

Aside from the Bible, I'm beginning to think that the best apologetic is genuine Christian fellowship. Maybe this relates more directly to your question. Without quoting Bible, without trying to prove the existence of God, simply bring your atheist friend (if he's willing), not necessarily even to church, but to a group of Christians who are simply genuinely sharing struggles, sins, honestly and genuinely, perhaps over meal. A lot of times I begin thinking that it's doctrine that's going to win people over. Most of the time it's simply our lives, and genuine love that breaks down the barriers.


----------



## amishrockstar

mgkortus said:


> I think it is important to have a clear understanding of faith. Most often when an unbeliever speaks of faith, he is referring to something you just accept because it cannot be be proven.
> However, for the believer, the object of our faith is so obvious it is beyond proof!



"Yes," that's exactly what an atheist would say, "faith is something you just accept because it cannot be proven." 

But, in a way, isn't that just what Christians say as well? You don't set out to "prove" anything, right? By the power of the Spirit, you "accept" God's existence and commands, right? 

Saying something is "beyond proof" is, in effect, to say the same thing that the atheist says about God's existence, no? 

Again, as the title asks, isn't "proof" going beyond faith? 

Thanks!


----------



## rickclayfan

amishrockstar said:


> I'm just not quite sure there would be much there for a conversation with an atheist though. If believers believe only because they "know," then there isn't much reasoning or discussion to be had. An atheist won't accept that anymore than we might accept a Mormon saying that he/she knows the book of Mormon is right because he/she felt a burning in the bosom.


It's worth remembering that we do not convert people, only God has the power to do so. If there was a step-by-step guide that had infallible results all the time, we would have it by now. The thing is, like was mentioned by Raymond, the problem is not with the proofs or argumentation, but with the human heart. If we begin to suppose that people can be converted solely through argumentation we would be guilty of Pelagianism.


----------



## Ed Walsh

amishrockstar said:


> Is it possible to prove/demonstrate the existence of God to an atheist





amishrockstar said:


> Is there "one" open-and-shut case for Christianity





amishrockstar said:


> Since Christians believe by "faith," is trying to offer evidence (i.e. physical/rational) sinful



That's three (at least) questions. Maybe I can say a few words on the third question.

I am not sure it is always sinful to offer evidence for the existence of God. But the moment you think that your atheistic opponent is ignorant of God he scores ten points.

There are some things that not only can be known about God but are known about God already by all men. This knowledge does not come to men at the end of some elaborate search or intellectual process. They know him already. They know this because God has shown it to them by making this knowledge plain to them. So let's consider what they know about God. Do they know that there is a God? Yes, but they know more. They know the true God. The very same God we Christians know. No, they don't know everything about him but let's see just what they do know. They know his invisible attributes, his eternal power, his immortality and his divine nature, all of which have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world so that they are without excuse. And what do all me do with this innate knowledge? Do they seek God? No, they suppress these glorious truths by their unrighteousness.

What else do they know? They know God is angry at their sin from the awful things that come upon them in this world, to even seemingly innocent people, for the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all their ungodliness and unrighteousness. They also know that deserve eternal punishment in hell. And what do they do? Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

So is it sinful to offer evidence for the existence of God? Maybe not, but be careful! Don't unwittingly aid your opponent in his God-denying program of suppressing the truth. Remind him that he knows God and that he is just denying it to his eternal ruin.

PS - See Romans 1:18-32


----------



## timfost

amishrockstar said:


> I still don't quite understand though. The faith or "belief" that a believer has is "unto salvation." How is that anyway similar to the "faith" an atheist supposedly has?



In a nutshell, faith is simply trust (which of necessity includes knowledge and assent). A Christian is not saved because He has faith itself, but faith in God. An unbeliever is not one who does not have faith, but one who does not have faith in God. The atheist trusts in science, or the human intellect, etc.

Man is condemned, not for a lack of faith, but for a lack of faith in God, which is a rejection of the object of the Christian faith.


----------



## MW

amishrockstar said:


> I still don't quite understand though. The faith or "belief" that a believer has is "unto salvation." How is that anyway similar to the "faith" an atheist supposedly has?



On the level of the formal argument, again, noticing what each one is setting forward in opposition to the other, the believer is not believing "unto salvation," but simply believing in God as such. He is setting forth theism; and in opposition to this belief the atheist is setting forth his belief that God does not exist. Until this formal aspect of the argument is properly levelled out it will be impossible to establish what passes for "credible" or "reasonable" belief. The criteria for rationality will be more severe on the theist than on the atheist, and the atheist will never be required to answer for his beliefs according to his own rational tests. Once that is the case you cannot "prove" anything, either objectively or subjectively.



amishrockstar said:


> Beliefs, whatever that may mean, I suppose can be formed by evidence, reasons, or experiences. And "yes" I do think our brains play a part in what we do and don't believe.



On that criteria I would say that it is impossible to establish an objective basis for any belief.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## amishrockstar

timfost said:


> In a nutshell, faith is simply trust (which of necessity includes knowledge and assent). A Christian is not saved because He has faith itself, but faith in God. An unbeliever is not one who does not have faith, but one who does not have faith in God. The atheist trusts in science, or the human intellect, etc.
> 
> Man is condemned, not for a lack of faith, but for a lack of faith in God, which is a rejection of the object of the Christian faith.



I don't know. I still don't think it's right to say that "faith in God" and "faith in science" are the same kind of "faith."

I don't think it's correct to say that "faith" is simply "trust." They are synonyms for sure, but I feel that there's a distinction between the two. Christian faith isn't simply trust that comes from "knowledge and assent," but it also entails an element of trusting and believing even when you don't know what's going on or what the plan is (e.g. the faith of Abraham with Isaac).

Christians trust in what they *cannot see* (i.e. God), while atheists (those who lean towards western science) trust in what they *can see*. This reminds me of the "some trust in chariots... but we trust in the Lord" verse. 

Ultimately, I don't think it's correct to say that an atheist has "faith in science," since I don't think Christian "faith" and the word "trust" are _perfect _synonyms. Scientists "trust" in science because of their experiments that lead to results (their theories are tested in the physical world, they work, and they trust them); there isn't really an equivalent to that in Christianity (i.e. "taste and see that the Lord is good..." isn't a science experiment).

So, again, to me, it seems like equivocation to apply "faith" to non-believers, especially to scientists.


----------



## mgkortus

I recommend reversing the order. Rather than saying proof is beyond faith, I prefer to say that faith is beyond proof. In other words, the object of our faith is so clear and obvious that it goes beyond proof. To use an analogy: if you and another individual were standing in the middle of a rain storm, it would not be necessary to prove to that individual that is raining. 

But it is always important to remember that (saving) faith is the gift of God given only to the elect and it is included as part of our salvation. The Canons of Dort make this clear.


----------



## amishrockstar

mgkortus said:


> I recommend reversing the order. Rather than saying proof is beyond faith, I prefer to say that faith is beyond proof. In other words, the object of our faith is so clear and obvious that it goes beyond proof. To use an analogy: if you and another individual were standing in the middle of a rain storm, it would not be necessary to prove to that individual that is raining.
> 
> But it is always important to remember that (saving) faith is the gift of God given only to the elect and it is included as part of our salvation. The Canons of Dort make this clear.



If the object of faith (i.e. God) is "so clear and obvious that it goes beyond proof," then why do apologists, debaters, and millions of Christians spend so much time, energy, and money trying to "prove" God to non-believers? 

That God is "invisible" and "unseen" goes against the assertion that God is so clear and obvious. Doesn't the Bible mention that unbeliever's minds are darkened by God, and so it is not so clear to them who or what God is? Aren't even "believers" seeing things as through a glass, "darkly?" 

Again, I think that the whole apologetics industry goes against the idea that faith is beyond the need for proof (or at least "people" themselves are beyond the "need" for proof).


----------



## MW

amishrockstar said:


> That God is "invisible" and "unseen" goes against the assertion that God is so clear and obvious.



That is what the atheist would have you believe, but it is nonsense. Here you are writing to other people. You must believe that they have a mind to understand you. Yet these minds to whom you are writing are "invisible" and "unseen."

There is a whole realm of unseen realities which is obvious to reason. Reason itself is unseen; as is volition, morality, virtue, etc.

Again, until it is realised that atheism is a "belief," and that the atheist is equally bound to account for the foundation and functionality of "belief" in human beings, the debate is unevenly inclined to his advantage, and the theist has no hope of showing the rationality of belief in God. The field must be levelled out.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

amishrockstar said:


> If the object of faith (i.e. God) is "so clear and obvious that it goes beyond proof," then why do apologists, debaters, and millions of Christians spend so much time, energy, and money trying to "prove" God to non-believers?



The non-believer is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9), full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), not able to come to Jesus unless given to by God (Eph. 2:2), must be quickened by God (Eph. 2:4-5), cannot choose righteousness until regenerated (Titus 3:5), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6), is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2-1), is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2-3), cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14), and is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:15-20).

Apparently not a few actually believe they can argue these spiritual corpses into the Kingdom. Seems to me it would be more prudent to inform the non-believer of his dire state of affairs and how terrible it will be to fall into the hands of the living God, yet mercifully that same God has provided a means for them to avoid the wrath to come: Romans 3:23; 6:23; 8:1; 10:9; 10:13.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Afterthought

amishrockstar said:


> If the object of faith (i.e. God) is "so clear and obvious that it goes beyond proof," then why do apologists, debaters, and millions of Christians spend so much time, energy, and money trying to "prove" God to non-believers?


To add on to what has been said, there are a variety of reasons why. AMR has given one. Some others people have are (1) to shut the mouth of unbelief, (2) to encourage believers in their faith, (3) to leave unbelief all the more without excuse, and (4) to awaken the sense of divinity by means of these arguments.



amishrockstar said:


> Again, I think that the whole apologetics industry goes against the idea that faith is beyond the need for proof (or at least "people" themselves are beyond the "need" for proof).


It depends on what you mean by "proof" and "need." One can know something without proof, and one can believe something on some other basis than proof. The proof merely gives reasons in the public sphere for the truth of some belief. In the case we are discussing, all people have enough proof to know God is and is a rewarder of them that seek Him. In that sense, they do not need proof. However, due to suppression of the truth, people deceive themselves into believing they do not know. Proof can be a means for bringing up what is held under by their suppression. However, it is not the only way to do that: conviction by the Word of God can accomplish the same. So still, we see a sense in which proof is not needed. However, if one wants to have a discussion, then one will need to use something in order to go back and forth. It is in dealing with the mechanics of that that proof is needed (it is needed in discussion when showing an evidential or rational basis for certain theist beliefs).

Having said all that, if one is going to argue, one should make sure the playing field is level (as Rev. Winzer has been discussing).



MW said:


> Again, until it is realised that atheism is a "belief," and that the atheist is equally bound to account for the foundation and functionality of "belief" in human beings, the debate is unevenly inclined to his advantage, and the theist has no hope of showing the rationality of belief in God. The field must be levelled out.


I completely agree. However, on a practical level and in my experience, many people do not have the proper philosophical training to appreciate these sorts of foundationalist or presuppositional arguments. How would you (or anyone on the board who sees this question) bring these arguments down to the level of the common man? Or would your strategy change for such people?


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> I completely agree. However, on a practical level and in my experience, many people do not have the proper philosophical training to appreciate these sorts of foundationalist or presuppositional arguments. How would you (or anyone on the board who sees this question) bring these arguments down to the level of the common man? Or would your strategy change for such people?



The "other minds" argument is easily grasped. The common practice of speaking or writing to another person expresses a basic belief which is intuitively accepted.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

amishrockstar said:


> I don't know. I still don't think it's right to say that "faith in God" and "faith in science" are the same kind of "faith."



How would you distinguish? What are your thoughts on James 2:19?

"You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!"

The Bible speaks about different kinds of faith. These are sometimes described as historical, temporary, faith of miracles and saving/justifying faith. You may want to consider the scriptures own use of faith, then apply it to science. I think you'll find very much commonality between historical faith and the faith of science or atheism. Ask yourself, "what kind of faith do demons have?" Certainly there are differences, but to avoid using faith in the realm of atheism denies that they base their system of belief on presuppositions. To say that an atheist has no faith is to pretend with them that they don't rely on unprovable assumptions and... the unseen.

Hope this helps.


----------



## amishrockstar

MW said:


> That is what the atheist would have you believe, but it is nonsense. Here you are writing to other people. You must believe that they have a mind to understand you. Yet these minds to whom you are writing are "invisible" and "unseen."
> 
> There is a whole realm of unseen realities which is obvious to reason. Reason itself is unseen; as is volition, morality, virtue, etc.
> 
> Again, until it is realised that atheism is a "belief," and that the atheist is equally bound to account for the foundation and functionality of "belief" in human beings, the debate is unevenly inclined to his advantage, and the theist has no hope of showing the rationality of belief in God. The field must be levelled out.



Interesting points and concession.

I think you'd agree that the human experience in the world is that other humans exist and interact with each other. The "modern" human experience is that we email people we cannot see, and we talk with people on cellphones who are somewhere else. People have addresses and take up physical space; the same cannot be said of God. Your analogy breaks down because the "invisible" and "unseen" nature of humans living in the physical world is not the same as the invisible/unseen nature of God (who no one has seen). In other words, it's not equal to say that one must "believe" that someone will receive an email in the same way a Christian has "faith" in God. 

Abstractions (e.g. morality, virtue, etc) don't exist in the same way that God is said to exist. Again this analogy breaks down.

I've talked with loads of atheists and seen many, many debates (as I'm sure you have). Atheism is often defined as a "lack of belief." It's not a belief in something or someone; it's a "lack of belief." You don't have a "belief" in the non-existence of leprechauns; you simply lack a belief. The same could probably be said for Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, etc.

I don't see "faith" and "belief" as the same thing when it comes to discussing theology or religion. They are synonyms but not the exact same thing. Christian faith is not the same as the "belief" that demons have (James 2:19), and it's certainly not the belief that an atheist has that someone is reading his/her messages online.

I'm sorry, but Christianity is a set of "beliefs," and I'm sure we can agree on that, but atheism is not a set of beliefs, doctrines, or propositions; there is no creed he/she must hold. Atheism is a lack of belief in God (or gods), and we probably won't agree on this point.


----------



## MW

amishrockstar said:


> People have addresses and take up physical space; the same cannot be said of God.



It is not that you are having a discussion with another person, but that you are assuming the person with whom you are having a discussion has a MIND. The point is that you assume unseen qualities in the person. Yes, the analogy breaks down with regard to God because God is pure spirit and man is not, but before the analogy breaks down it has served the purpose of showing that belief in unseen realities is intuitive and inevitable.


----------



## amishrockstar

MW said:


> It is not that you are having a discussion with another person, but that you are assuming the person with whom you are having a discussion has a MIND. The point is that you assume unseen qualities in the person. Yes, the analogy breaks down with regard to God because God is pure spirit and man is not, but before the analogy breaks down it has served the purpose of showing that belief in unseen realities is intuitive and inevitable.



Ah. I didn't understand that "that" was the argument. In that case, you "still" have all your work ahead of you. 

"No," a typical western atheist would not "assume unseen qualities in a person" by assuming that person has a "mind." You would have to demonstrate that "mind" is immaterial first, but I doubt you'd get much help from neuroscientists who can pinpoint areas in the brain that control emotions, thoughts, etc. 

At the very least, we can demonstrate that "mind" is physical. But you cannot demonstrate (apart from analogy) that mind is immaterial. 

Even if you could demonstrate or prove that "mind" is immaterial, it still doesn't prove a spirit exists, and it still wouldn't prove God exists. 

*Can you:* 
1) Prove or demonstrate that "mind" is immaterial (apart from anaolgy and metaphor)? 

2) Prove "spirit" exists, apart from analogy and metaphor (eg "...the spirit is like the wind...")?

Again, for a Christian, these things are assumed and taken on "faith," but if you're trying to offer proof or evidence for such immaterial entities, you'll come up short because we have no reliable "test" or "mechanism" to demonstrate something like a spirit existing. 

Ultimately, an atheist does not have to "believe in unseen realities" in the way that you mean them. They do believe in unseen phenomena, such as someone on the other end of the cellphone and that you experience feelings that they cannot directly see, but this, again, is inline with our experience of interacting with the physical world and other humans. It does not prove that "minds" are immaterial or that spirits exist.


----------



## Ed Walsh

amishrockstar said:


> "No," a typical western atheist would not "assume unseen qualities in a person" by assuming that person has a "mind." You would have to demonstrate that "mind" is immaterial first, but I doubt you'd get much help from neuroscientists who can pinpoint areas in the brain that control emotions, thoughts, etc.



Is this off topic? I don't think so. Tell me if you think I am off topic.

I think the atheist's problems are even more basic than most realize. What, in the atheist's worldview, gives him the confidence to assume that his reasoning ability is reliable? After all, we are just matter in motion, the chance result of random chemicals reacting, well, just reacting. Upon what foundation does he base his "belief" that his mind is not just playing tricks on him? He can't help but think what he thinks. If he ever stopped to think about his position--his most basic assumptions, he would quickly spiral into extreme metaphysical distress.

I assume many will say that I am being ridiculous here. Everyone _knows_ that we have valid reasoning abilities. Don't they? I agree that the atheist can reason correctly for the most part. But what reason can he give for his assumptions? To claim that he has demonstrated repeatedly that his mind is a working just fine is clearly circular reasoning.

Here's the question: What kind of universe would provide assurance for him that he can, in fact, think valid thoughts? In a chance universe, the mind is just thinking whatever the interaction of certain chemicals determines. Actually, he can't even know that. But by assuming we live in an orderly, logical, _created_ universe the problem is solved.

Let's pause for a moment and review what the atheist _knows_. Yes, I said knows for certain at the deepest level. No faith needed. See my post #18 for an overview of what all men know.

I have concluded that the atheist is a kind of closet Christian. Well, maybe not a Christian, but an informed knower of the true God. He can think valid thoughts because he is what God created him to be. A man made in God's image with the abilities to reason correctly, at least up to a point. (again I refer you to post #18)

Proverbs 1:7a (KJV)
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge...


----------



## amishrockstar

Ed Walsh said:


> I think the atheist's problems are even more basic than most realize. What, in the atheist's worldview, gives him the confidence to assume that his reasoning ability is reliable? After all, we are just matter in motion, the chance result of random chemicals reacting, well, just reacting. Upon what foundation does he base his "belief" that his mind is not just playing tricks on him? He can't help but think what he thinks. If he ever stopped to think about his position--his most basic assumptions, he would quickly spiral into extreme metaphysical distress.
> ...
> Here's the question: What kind of universe would provide assurance for him that he can, in fact, think valid thoughts? In a chance universe, the mind is just thinking whatever the interaction of certain chemicals determines.



Again, I've heard loads of atheist debates and shows, and one answer that comes to mind is that atheists have confidence in their reasoning ability because of it's ability to keep them alive (it's just that simple). In other words, they see things like cause and effect, and they realize, for example, that they ought not to drive against traffic. There are a myriad of examples along this line, but I think the point is made: The atheist is still alive and his/her "reason" produces favorable results in the world, so it's "experience" and "nature" that give him/her confidence. If life were otherwise, he/she would chuck reason out the window. It's experiential & practical.

These questions remind me of what atheists like Matt Dillahunty have asked: How did you determine which super-powerful entity (God or Satan) is the "good" one and which is the "bad" one? If Satan really is able to influence and deceive people, how do you know you're not deceived by Satan at this moment? Is it possible? Could you ever know with 100% certainty? How can you trust your own reasoning abilities, especially if you believe miracles and the supernatural are possible?

Just a quick note: Atheists like Dawkins have said many, many times that evolution is not simply based on "chance." To say that they believe in a purely chance universe is a false characterization of their position, and I don't think it's helpful in dialogue with them.


----------



## rickclayfan

amishrockstar said:


> 1) Prove or demonstrate that "mind" is immaterial (apart from anaolgy and metaphor)?
> 
> 2) Prove "spirit" exists, apart from analogy and metaphor (eg "...the spirit is like the wind...")?


R.L. Dabney has a good chapter on this in his book _The Sensualistic Philosophy_ called "Spirituality of the Mind." Here's a summary of that chapter:
https://www.scribd.com/document/342...Philosophy-Chapter-8-Spirituality-of-the-Mind


----------



## KeithW

I know the conversation has gone beyond the original question, but the first sentence of the original question demonstrates makes assumptions about what can be argued and that this type of argumentation can achieve a goal.

I just listened to a recent podcast which is a basic introduction to the difference between evidentialism (proofs and evidence) and presuppositionalism and how this difference is applicable to the Bible. I think it might be applicable to this thread.
"Do Atheists Exist? w/ Sye Ten Bruggencate"
http://sheologians.com/do-atheists-exist-w-sye-ten-bruggencate/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwithnell

amishrockstar said:


> faith is something you just accept because it cannot be proven.


 In logical terms, you could state that each person has a priori -- a willingness to accept as true presuppositions upon which an argument may be based.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

amishrockstar said:


> Again, for a Christian, these things are assumed and taken on "faith," but if you're trying to offer proof or evidence for such immaterial entities, you'll come up short because we have no reliable "test" or "mechanism" to demonstrate something like a spirit existing.



That is the point; and when it is applied to the atheist's view you will start to level the field so far as burden of proof is concerned. The test of rationality does not only apply to the Christian; it applies to the atheist as well.


----------



## MW

amishrockstar said:


> But you cannot demonstrate (apart from analogy) that mind is immaterial.



Your statement presupposes the fact you are denying. Matter does not demonstrate anything. The power of demonstration proves the mind is immaterial.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

amishrockstar said:


> Ultimately, an atheist does not have to "believe in unseen realities" in the way that you mean them.



I am sure the atheist does not see "truth." It is a fair indication that he is escaping from the tests of rationality if he refuses to believe "truth."


----------



## LilyG

KeithW said:


> I know the conversation has gone beyond the original question, but the first sentence of the original question demonstrates makes assumptions about what can be argued and that this type of argumentation can achieve a goal.
> 
> I just listened to a recent podcast which is a basic introduction to the difference between evidentialism (proofs and evidence) and presuppositionalism and how this difference is applicable to the Bible. I think it might be applicable to this thread.
> "Do Atheists Exist? w/ Sye Ten Bruggencate"
> http://sheologians.com/do-atheists-exist-w-sye-ten-bruggencate/



Exactly what I was thinking. Covenantal apologetics.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## amishrockstar

KeithW said:


> I know the conversation has gone beyond the original question, but the first sentence of the original question demonstrates makes assumptions about what can be argued and that this type of argumentation can achieve a goal.
> 
> I just listened to a recent podcast which is a basic introduction to the difference between evidentialism (proofs and evidence) and presuppositionalism and how this difference is applicable to the Bible. I think it might be applicable to this thread.
> "Do Atheists Exist? w/ Sye Ten Bruggencate"
> http://sheologians.com/do-atheists-exist-w-sye-ten-bruggencate/



I can no longer watch Sye Ten after his debate with Matt Dillahunty. If you've seen that debate, you might know why.


----------



## amishrockstar

MW said:


> That is the point; and when it is applied to the atheist's view you will start to level the field so far as burden of proof is concerned. The test of rationality does not only apply to the Christian; it applies to the atheist as well.



I'm not sure I follow. 
What is the point from what I wrote? Is it that there's no way to prove a spirit exists? 

The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. I don't understand what "leveling the playing field" is about when it comes to the burden of proof. You either have the burden of proof or you don't.


----------



## amishrockstar

MW said:


> Your statement presupposes the fact you are denying. Matter does not demonstrate anything. The power of demonstration proves the mind is immaterial.



Again, I don't follow. 
How, exactly, does "demonstration" prove the mind is immaterial? 

From the atheist's point of view, they would probably say we use our physical brains to reason (I assume most Christians would too). If our physical brains are what we use to form arguments and understand things, how is that then "immaterial," and what does the venn diagram look like for "brain" and "mind" (ie how are they similar and different in your mind)? Do we not do anything with our physical brains?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

amishrockstar said:


> The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim.


It that a principle that arises from matter? Having studied nuclear engineering, I'm not aware of any physical particle from which that principle emerges.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

amishrockstar said:


> From the atheist's point of view, they would probably say we use our physical brains to reason (I assume most Christians would too). If our physical brains are what we use to form arguments and understand things, how is that then "immaterial," and what does the venn diagram look like for "brain" and "mind" (ie how are they similar and different in your mind)? Do we not do anything with our physical brains?


What principle are you using that, in all circumstances, you must answer a fool according to his folly?

You seem to be under the illusion in this thread that we are required to answer every skeptic's objection according to the parameters of what they will accept. Yes, an atheist has a "story" about how his thinking (and even math or logic) is merely the product of a physical brain thinking. So what?

I'm fascinated by most atheists I hear (including Matt Dillihanty) as to ad hoc and inconsistent they are. Most are pragmatists. They use reason to criticize others but then give no basis in reason for the faculties of reason they employ. Just yesterday, the CEO of the British humanist society was critical of the idea of grounding reason or the study of history in anything other than "it works". If it ceases to "work" then it is discarded.

Thus, at the foundation of any atheistic foundation is an irrational footing and they employ logic and other tools but when asked to give account for them they simply mock the one who asks for them to give account as a question that needs no answer. Van Til notes that the atheist must stand on God's lap in order to slap Him in the face.

Thus, I will give answers to those who ask me (this is what we are commanded to do) but nowhere are we commanded in Scripture to "prove" to the skeptic that God exists. I assume, when you joined this board, you confessed to Reformed principles and fundamental to Reformed theology - the prologomena - is the Creator/creature distinction. We do not confess that we are independent minds discovering facts of the universe that are independent of the God that created them and then coming to our own conclusion about God (or gods) on the basis of our reason. The Scriptures do not teach that "...the heavens _probably_ declare the glory of God..." and the Scriptures also teach that God has made Himself manifest to all His creatures.

Do you believe the Scriptures or do you agree with the atheists who make claims about the basis of logic and reason? Your responses so far would indicate that it's just too embarrassing for you to actually have to answer an atheist that your ability to think owes to the fact that you were created in God's image. He'll mock you that your mythology is no different than that of belief in Thor. Will you agree with him simply because he mocks? Will you be ashamed simply because you can offer no argument that he and his peers will respect? Perhaps it is because you want their respect that you are ashamed or embarrassed?

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## Ed Walsh

amishrockstar said:


> From the atheist's point of view, they would probably say we use our physical brains to reason (I assume most Christians would too)



It's the last phrase, "I assume most Christians would too," that I for one take issue with. I am a Christian, although I may not be "most" Christians."

Here is a thumbnail on my present opinion of thought:

It seems to me that we can say that thought happens in the body, especially in (and around) the brain. The thoughts themselves are an immaterial “field” around the brain, not so much as “in” the brain. Thoughts are more like gravity and magnetism than like the computations of a computer. Thought has no matter or particles emanating from it. Is not thought “the” thing in us created most in the image of God who is Himself a pure Spirit.

Someone I read recently said, "Ontologically, thought is in the brain, epistemologically, it is not."


----------



## amishrockstar

Ed Walsh said:


> It seems to me that we can say that thought happens in the body, especially in (and around) the brain. The thoughts themselves are an immaterial “field” around the brain, not so much as “in” the brain. Thoughts are more like gravity and magnetism than like the computations of a computer. Thought has no matter or particles emanating from it. Is not thought “the” thing in us created most in the image of God who is Himself a pure Spirit. Someone I read recently said, "Ontologically, thought is in the brain, epistemologically, it is not."



Consciousness, thoughts, and minds are hard enough question topics for neuroscientists, and since I doubt there are many specialists in that field on this forum, I'm sure we'll all have different views on this topic. You said that thought happens in and around the brain, and then you said that thoughts are "around" the brain, not so much in it. It's like you're saying thoughts are a product of physical phenomena; however, you can't just leave it at that (i.e. you need to make them somehow distinct from the body and brain). It's almost as if you're wanting to make thoughts into something that floats around a person's skull. When I have a thought of a beach on an island, is that thought happening within my body/brain, or is that thought sitting 2 inches above my skull? 

Scientist have shown that by damaging portions of a brain, a person's attitude, emotions, and way of thinking can be altered. Thoughts are a bit more complicated than simply saying: Show me the neuron for a thought about a beach on an island. The brain is a complicated network, which I'm sure you'd agree with. 

Even though we talk about thoughts being "abstract" and immaterial, they are produced by physical properties and relationships, and I see no reason to believe they exist 2 inches above my skull. As far as we can demonstrate, all our thoughts are generated and exist "within" each of our bodies.


----------



## amishrockstar

Semper Fidelis said:


> It that a principle that arises from matter? Having studied nuclear engineering, I'm not aware of any physical particle from which that principle emerges.



I would assume that "neuroscience" would be a better discipline to answer questions of neurons in the brain. There isn't just a single "physical particle" that carries around the thought "red" in a person's mind. 

Principles, like the laws of logic, are descriptive in nature. They are simply ways that we describe and understand things. They aren't immaterial entities floating around in space somewhere. 

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "matter." If you mean "humans," which are made of matter (i.e. take up space in the world), then, "yes," matter (i.e. humans) give rise to these principles as we discover them through study, argumentation, and observation. If you don't mean "humans," then I don't understand the question. 

If you argue that infant baptism is in the Bible, then it's primarily up to you to "prove" that. It's not up to me to disprove that. The same thing with leprechauns: If you're going to claim they exist, it's up to you to show they exist. If the burden of proof is not on the one making the claim, then anything can be claimed without any checks and balances. "Yes," humans (i.e. matter) have figured these things out.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

amishrockstar said:


> f you argue that infant baptism is in the Bible, then it's primarily up to you to "prove" that. It's not up to me to disprove that. The same thing with leprechauns: If you're going to claim they exist, it's up to you to show they exist. If the burden of proof is not on the one making the claim, then anything can be claimed without any checks and balances. "Yes," humans (i.e. matter) have figured these things out.


The number of claims you have made without "proving" them as principles by which I (and others) must abide keeps rising.

Here is my claim: you're a poser. You're not really a Christian but an atheist posing as a Christian on a Reformed site.

You will need to prove to me that you are actually Reformed in your orthodoxy. Until that point, enjoy your interactions with your fellow atheists.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## MW

amishrockstar said:


> From the atheist's point of view, they would probably say we use our physical brains to reason (I assume most Christians would too). If our physical brains are what we use to form arguments and understand things, how is that then "immaterial," and what does the venn diagram look like for "brain" and "mind" (ie how are they similar and different in your mind)? Do we not do anything with our physical brains?



According to your atheist his point of view is produced by physical causes. This means he believes what he must believe by physical necessity. The facts of the case have no bearing on what he believes, according to his beliefs. Conversely, the Christian's beliefs would be just as valid as his own because the Christian would believe by the same necessity of nature, according to the atheist's point of view. He has thus left himself without any "reason" for his atheism. Which brings us to the obvious conclusion that his point of view must be dependent on his self-refuting faith.

Again, practically speaking, here you are writing to other minds which you believe to exist. You might have concluded that these other minds are nothing more than brains being moved by electrical impulses. But your whole method of reasoning proves that you regarded them as spiritual objects. You did not use electrical impulses to get your point across to them. You used "reasons."

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Puritan Sailor

amishrockstar said:


> Consciousness, thoughts, and minds are hard enough question topics for neuroscientists, and since I doubt there are many specialists in that field on this forum, I'm sure we'll all have different views on this topic. You said that thought happens in and around the brain, and then you said that thoughts are "around" the brain, not so much in it. It's like you're saying thoughts are a product of physical phenomena; however, you can't just leave it at that (i.e. you need to make them somehow distinct from the body and brain). It's almost as if you're wanting to make thoughts into something that floats around a person's skull. When I have a thought of a beach on an island, is that thought happening within my body/brain, or is that thought sitting 2 inches above my skull?
> 
> Scientist have shown that by damaging portions of a brain, a person's attitude, emotions, and way of thinking can be altered. Thoughts are a bit more complicated than simply saying: Show me the neuron for a thought about a beach on an island. The brain is a complicated network, which I'm sure you'd agree with.
> 
> Even though we talk about thoughts being "abstract" and immaterial, they are produced by physical properties and relationships, and I see no reason to believe they exist 2 inches above my skull. As far as we can demonstrate, all our thoughts are generated and exist "within" each of our bodies.



Just to put the whole mind/brain stuff to rest for the moment; we have fully functioning minds when our immaterial souls go to heaven after the body dies. Biblically, there is no reason to restrict thinking to the physical brain. Scripture is clear that we are not zombies or comatose during the intermediate state, but think and worship and communicate without our bodies. The brain most likely functions as an organ of communication between the immaterial soul and the physical body. 

Regarding atheists living by faith, it's not that hard to grasp philosophically. Yes, they claim to have no faith in God, but they can only do so by putting their trust in other things like reason or intuition. An absence of belief in God actually means you believe in something else, some other worldview which you assume in order to make the world coherent and meaningful. You never live in a philosophical vacuum. If you do not worship the Creator, you will worship the creature one way or another. 

For the atheist, one creature/idol he worships is his own reason. If it doesn't appear rational to him, then it can't be rational at all. The idea of infinite wisdom and knowledge which surpasses his finite reason are not allowed. So the challenge is to help the atheist see that his doubt is not really an absence of faith but an alternate faith in something else, and a faith which he cannot defend even by his own criteria.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------

