The invention of the internet has enabled religious discussions of all kinds to reach a wildly diverse audience. Regardless of your personal worldview, or how well developed it is, you are now able to access any topic your heart desires, and all you need to do is press a few buttons. And this is a mostly good thing. A truth seeker, lacking knowledge, can type even the most basic questions into a search engine and find the answers they're looking for.
The flip side of this is that you are able, maybe even likely, to find things you're just not ready for. This is true in more ways than one. Regardless of what your worldview is, you will almost inevitably find things which shouldn't affect your worldview, but will, or things that should affect your worldview, but won't.
At this point, I am speaking very broadly. I am, of course, very biased towards my own Christian worldview, and so I would argue that everyone should ultimately become a Christian. But actually, there are arguments for the Christian faith that I do not think should convince you, even if they are convincing to large numbers of people. Similarly, there are arguments against false worldviews I think are appalling, and hate when my fellow Christians use them.
My point here is that mixed classes will ultimately result in chaos. This is particularly exemplified in the atheist community, who love to insert themselves into everyone else's conversations, expecting the whole discussion to reset just for them. Before we can discuss anything about God, they claim, we must first establish that such a being exists.
But what if we already have? If, for example, I am talking to a Muslim, I am talking to someone who already shares a lot of the same knowledge I do. He already knows there is a God. He is even aware that there is only one God. It's even very likely, in this modern world, that he has a similar degree of experience with atheists, and likely uses similar arguments in that context. Why, then, would we "first" have to establish that God exists? Even if the discussion takes place on an open, public forum, we have already established this! The atheist is simply not as relevant as he thinks he is.
In truth, atheists have never been especially relevant. As Isaac Newton once said, "Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors." See, the existence of God is such a basic question that the vast majority of humanity skips it. There have even been scientific studies that show children know there is a God by instinct. We don't need to be taught there is a God, we need to be taught there isn't.
This is very likely why the vast majority of humanity has always been Theistic to some degree or another. The simple fact is, God has made Himself so obvious that atheism is regressive. It reduces us to a child-like, almost animalistic state. And some atheists almost explicitly argue we should return to a child like state!
But as a Christian, I prefer the scientific approach. According to Scripture, "The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race. Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from its heat." (Psalm 19:1-6).
This is a poetic way of saying to find out about the Creator, we can look to His creation. Even at a basic level, this seems obvious. When we have a creation, we know there is a Creator.
Thus, the question really is which god exists? When you have a creation, you know there is a Creator, but when you continue to deny the Creator, you're actually giving credence to a vast array of increasingly absurd alternatives.
As I recently explained it to an atheist, suppose you were to doubt the existence of the Wright Brothers. It is a historical fact that the Wright Brothers invented the plane. If, for whatever reason, you were to doubt their existence, you are still faced with the existence of the plane.
Now, planes do not need the Wright Brothers, specifically, to exist. But they do need something like the Wright Brothers. So we imagine a world wherein people not only doubt the Wright Brothers, but posit alternatives. Maybe Newton invented the plane? Or Edison? Maybe Tesla? Well now we can gather in a room and discuss which scientist/s invented the plane.
Now imagine some numpty entered the room and declared "first you must establish that humans exist in the first place!" Really? We must? Of course not! It must be taken for granted that humans exist, simply because of the nature of the plane. The only feasible way for planes to have ever come about is by human invention. Thus, the question of man's existence could be established just by looking to the skies. To deny it is to suggest it's possible that a plane can come about by some other means.
The irreducible complexity of a plane is far exceeded by even the simplest cell in your body. If it is impossible for a plane to exist without intelligent design, then it is also impossible for the creation in which we live to be the result of anything less. Thus, the question really is "which god?" For atheists to show up and demand God's existence be established first isn't just ignorant, but imposes that level of ignorance upon Theists. If an atheist needs milk, then let them drink milk, but leave the Theists to our own solid meals.
Commenti