50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:105-109

When I spoke yesterday of knowing the things of God that we need to know, It was not my intention to limit our relationship to our Saviour in any unscriptural way. Though I may not agree with the concept, there is apparently some (though not much) Biblical support for the idea that Jesus, despite the entire concept of the Trinity (the three-in-one Nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit) may not, for reasons which I don't claim to understand, have total knowledge of the Father's mind. Consider the following, which is an excerpt from 1 Corinthians that is part of the same speech by Paul, as that which we quoted in yesterday's instalment:

"...but God has revealed it to us by His Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."

1 Corinthians 2:10-11

At least a few people have grasped on to the fact that the Scripture states "except the Spirit of God", but does not explicitly include Jesus in that exception. They add to this the fact that Jesus cried out to the Father, while He (Jesus) hung on The Cross, 

 

"...My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Mark 15:34b

and they claim this also shows that Jesus was not privy to every thought in the Father's mind.

Myself, I think it is one of those conversations that seem to serve no other purpose than to create division, and if there is anything to it at all, it is probably one of those "deep things" of God, better left to the searching of the Spirit, or at the very least, left to the study of men more educated than myself.

So, to carry on. It would appear that you have offered no specific comments for the four references that complete this so-called proof of yours (they are mainly redundant anyway), but rather than just end your first argument here, you add some final comments, sacrilegious insult, a nifty diagram, and an entire boxed section entitled "Understanding The Rationalities", which in and of itself, just may be one of the most irrational and convoluted pieces of writing I have ever witnessed.  All of this at the bottom of the page. Yet in the first paragraph of those same closing comments you offer a rather self-centered affirmation to your readers of how nothing could be simpler or clearer than the evidence you have provided in your proof. Well if your previously-given proof as you call it is so clear, why did you feel the necessity to offer all this other fluff which is truly nothing more than a repetitious, re-working of the same faulty arguments that you made in the main body of this page.

 Since I have no inclination to answer the same arguments all over again, I will just by-pass that entire section, leaving it up to any who are so motivated to do so, to read those comments on their own. They can easily find my refutations of each and every one of the points you try to hammer home at the bottom of this page, in my comments given above. As for the "evidence" that you claim is so clear, well, as we have seen, that is not any kind of evidence at all, but a bunch of misquoted Scriptures mixed in with unsubstantiated personal opinion from a writer, who, quite plainly, has no idea of what the subject he has chosen to write about, truly consists of. And that is the only thing about your whole "proof" that is clear. Of course, that's my opinion, and in all fairness, we should leave the actual judging up to those who might choose to read our pages. 

An Interlude, and Explanation of Process

 

As I sat here considering the ponderous amount of writing yet ahead of me in my remaining rebuttal of your web-page, "God Is Imaginary", I began to despair somewhat, as I remembered that my primary perusal of your site had seemed to indicate that there were no "proofs" (as you call them) at all, that were presented in a manner which would  bestow upon them any significance whatsoever. Furthermore, at that time, even I didn't realize just how redundant, and absurd, an individual's argument could be.

If we just consider your Proof #1 "Try Praying", for instance (which we have just now finished discussing), it becomes quite plain, that except for my interest in trying to edify you, at least a little bit, regarding the misconceptions you are apparently so trapped within, I could simply have made what was almost my first objection (which I later tried to expand upon somewhat, for the benefit of the readers, as well as yourself), and the matter would have been very easily, and thoroughly, taken care of. After all, as your heading would indicate, your contention is that proof was arrived at because a hypothetical grouping of people, either believers, or non-believers, offered a specific prayer, which, according to you (determined by yourself in your omniscience) did not, or would not, produce the desired, or expected result, or for that matter, any result at all.

 Hopefully, you now understand that as a non-believer (one who lacks belief) you are unable to pray effectively in the first place, at least until by an act of God's Holy Spirit, you receive the power of the God-given belief/faith to do so. You yourself inadvertently pointed this very principle out again and again, by writing things in your comments such as "So if we believe...." which you clearly don't. And I even took the time to explain that a true believer could not expect one of his own prayers, if it was of such a nature, to be answered, since it could not be considered to be a prayer for "such as God has promised". Therefore, if, as an unbeliever you lack the ability of effective prayer, and if believers are confined to praying the prayers of God (of which, yours is not one), then your entire Proof #1 simply crumbles. But just in case you still don't get it, let me give you one more illustration that may (or may not) clear this matter up for you.

Suppose it was my contention to prove that a professional baseball pitcher could not possibly throw a ball with sufficient force and accuracy, to hit, in the head, and kill, another unprotected individual at a distance of 70 feet. Further, suppose that I claim I can prove this, by attempting the feat myself, or, alternately, having the people I am making this claim to, try it for themselves. In either case, I go on to tell them, either they will fail, or I will fail, and thus, my point is proven. But someone objects.

Their problem, they tell me, is that neither I, nor the others that are trying, are professional baseball players, and so we lack the special kind of ability, or training, by which to have any chance at accomplishing the given task. I, in turn, tell them to get professional baseball pitchers to attempt the feat, and they also will fail, once again proving my point. Right? WRONG!

I would have to realize the absurdity of my so-called proof for the following very simple reasons. First, the amateurs (equivalent to your non-believers), simply don't have the tools to perform the feat. So yes, they will most likely fail. (There is always the possibility of exceptions surfacing, for any number of reasons beyond our control). The professionals, on the other hand, (equivalent to your "sincere believers") certainly do possess the tools to do the job, but most likely (definitely I hope), they will lack the motivation to even try something so silly, since it is a total departure from the accepted manner in which their talents were intended to be used, not to mention, it involves harming (even killing) a fellow human being. Therefore, my so-called proof, exactly like yours, is totally ridiculous, and truly isn't worth the pixels used to display it.

At any rate, we will FINALLY conclude this rebuttal, and begin with the introduction to the next, in that which follows tomorrow. Until then...

TO BE CONTINUED............