How about this idea? “If
I ignore the police officer that lights me up, then he or she will not exist or at least will go away.” Oh, really? What kind of thinking is
that?
The arguments against God are not uncommon and in fact are
tired old arguments which have been bandied about if not foisted upon mankind
over and over again. The old adage “Repeat
a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe
it…”[1]
comes into play. Over and over again
evidence is provided that would seem to militate against there being a God. It is often presented as new and novel,
however it is the same time warned theories over and over again.
Yes, in reality these arguments are just theories--ideas that can neither be proven nor disproved. However, there is a more serious and
fundamental question that most who claim the mantel of “atheist” or at least
“agnostic” cannot bring themselves to answer.
Before beginning the discussion of that notion, and as
written in a previous blog, no one can conclusively prove the existence of
God—No one! While there is ample if not
overwhelming evidence from science, from rationalism, from empiricism, and even
existentialism, there is nothing that can be conclusively proven. The best one can tender is evidence that points one toward there being a God.
What then is one left within this debate? Simply, one is left with the matter of one’s
opinion. Of course then it is quite
obvious that opinions vary widely!
Whatever system of evidence one chooses to accept, whatever philosophical
system one acknowledges, or whatever theology one embraces, opinions run the
gamut within that system.
What we do know is that presented with evidence one assumes
an opinion and every one of those opinions is a matter of choice. On one hand some make the choice to believe
in God. Meanwhile others choose to not to believe
in God. One must then ask and answer “Why?” Why do some choose to believe and some choose
not to believe?
In a debate at Oxford University, UK Peter Hitchens, brother
of Christopher Hitchens posited another question with several observations.[2] This may be the answer to the question just tendered. Roughly speaking the question was as follows.
Just why is it that the atheist wants there to be no god? Why do atheists expend great and even illogical
effort into this notion? Why when
confronted with questions such as first
causes do they resort to the extreme theoretical notions?
Why do men of such intellect as Richard Dawkins suggest alien seeding as
the beginning of what would lead to human life on earth?
Does it not seem that for their own reasons these folks will
go to any measure to not have to deal with the inconvenience of there being a
God—a supreme benevolent adjudicator of justice? The One to which all are accountable both in
this life and the next![3]
Maybe that is it. These
are those who simply believe that by ignoring Him, He will cease to exist or at
least go away. Can they really believe that
it is more convenient to ignore the evidence than to tempt the possibility of
accountability? Do they really believe
in such things?
Well then they must believe
that by ignoring the police officer who seeks to pull them over for speeding they can hinder and avert
their own accountability for breaking the law!
[1]
This quote is often attributed to Hitler, Goebbels, and has been used by
others.
[2] Remarks
available at http://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=VnIH4gomOqc
[3] Hebrews 9:27-28 27 And inasmuch as it is
appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also,
having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time
for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him. NASU
No comments:
Post a Comment