Bastion of Truth Reformed Churches in the Philippines

HOME

Return to Article Listing

A Debate with an Atheist

The following is a portion of a lengthy debate with a professing atheist in a popular social networking site. Although the arguments we have included here are philosophical and scientific in nature, let our readers know that we have not failed to witness to this atheist by presenting Biblical testimony prior to the arguments below. Apparently this atheist claims that we bored him to death with our Scriptural arguments and demands that we present sensible arguments for the existence of God. The truth is that this atheist proved himself ironic as he kept entertaining us in responding with his verbose, taunting and blasphemous counter-arguments as long as we sounded stupid to him with our Biblical arguments. And as soon as we begin to sound sensible by his own standards (that is, being supposedly philosophical and scientific) he never returned to respond. So what is he really bored of? our arguing biblically? or our arguing philosophically and scientifically? We do not claim that we are able to convert this atheist into a believer by arguing philosophically or scientifically. We have proven here why God-hating atheists cannot believe the Word of God. It is because they actually cannot believe what is philosophically, experientially and scientifically true. Of such our Lord Jesus Christ once said, "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" (John 3:12)  [A.M.A.]

A. AQUINO:  How does atheism account for our existence. How did the universe come to be?

ATHEIST: What the hell is this, an interview? 

I can't tell if you're deliberately changing the topic because you can't answer the points raised, or you really just don't know how to debate. Either way, this lack of direction in your debating skills bore me to no end. This is a debate, not an interview. You can find the answers to these questions on your own.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "letting it go," but "changing the topic" is nothing at all like "getting on with the evidence." Because now you're getting into the subject of the origins of life and the universe, when what we're talking about is evidence for your supernatural claims.

---

But if you're just really curious to know (and not simply itching to stick a "because God" answer in there):

<How does atheism account for our existence?>
1. It doesn't. 
It ONLY SAYS gods don't exist. 
This is a SCIENCE question, and has nothing to do with atheism. (It's quite annoying that I keep having to make distinctions like these.) 

If your curious as to what science has to say about the issue, here's an astrophysicist's view; a lot more plausible than the "abracadabra" version told in Genesis. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDRXn96HrtY&feature=related

And a rather recent article of interest:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/antarctica-meteorite-life-on-earth_n_829926.html

<How did the universe come to be?>
2. Nobody knows for sure how the universe came to be. There are only theories about it, but the exact origin of the universe is UNKNOWN. 

I know you're itching to answer "God did it!" on both questions. THAT would be what is referred to as the "Argument from Ignorance" fallacy, which is basically, "We don't know, therefore God, period!"

You asked for the kind of evidence we're looking for, and I told you.

Do you have evidence for these things you continuously claim?

1. God
2. Heaven and Hell

What are they?

Dr. Neil DeGrasse - A fascinatingly disturbing thought

Dr. Neil DeGrasse - Segment of Cosmic Quandaries

A. AQUINO: "Unknown"--quite convenient. Philosophy and Science requires that the universe has a beginning. A beginning presupposes a prior non-existence.

ATHEIST: //Philosophy and Science requires that the universe has a beginning.//

Who says? 

1. Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on RATIONAL argument.
2. Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of TESTABLE EXPLANATIONS AND PREDICTIONS about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), "science" refers to THE BODY OF RELIABLE KNOWLEDGE ITSELF, of the type that can be LOGICALLY AND RATIONALLY explained.

Both are studies seeking to explain how things work. And both seek to do things through rational arguments. I don't see how adhering to explanations like "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and said let there be light and plants and animals and people" as a way of explaining the origin of the universe qualifies as "rational".

Neither "requires" the universe to have a beginning. If through some odd twist of reality the world universally thought that the universe DIDN'T have a beginning, all these two fields of study will do is seek to explain how such a thing happened. Neither would "require" that the universe have a "non-beginning".

//A beginning presupposes a prior non-existence.//

We have to know first if the universe indeed had a "beginning" in the traditional sense of things having a beginning. Which we don't.
And even if it did have a beginning in the usual way we understand things, we STILL DON'T KNOW how it happened.

//"Unknown"--quite convenient.//

It's not convenient, it's just how it is. 
You think it's a better idea to just make up stories about things we have no knowledge of just to feel good about ourselves? 
That would be like making up answers to an Advanced Calculus test when we don't know anything about Advanced Calculus. We'd be able to write answers on the questionnaires, but the instructor correcting the paper would think we're idiots.

Why, do YOU know how the universe started?

---

And again:

You asked for the kind of evidence we're looking for, and I told you.

Do you have evidence for these things you continuously claim?

1. God
2. Heaven and Hell

What are they?

A. AQUINO: That’s a fine high-sounding university lecture you have there. Yet in all its verbosity and proud display of knowledge it fails to account for the “beginning” based on philosophy and science.

The material universe must have a beginning. Otherwise, it is eternal and thus there cannot exist an entity outside of it (e.g. a transcendent God). The physical universe must be “infinitely old” if it is not created. But Philosophy, experience and Science all refute this eternality/infinity of physical matter. If the universe is infinitely old, it is impossible to cross an infinite (beginningless-endless; boundless; limitless) amount of time from the infinite past to our present. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes. There must be an ultimate Cause. It is impossible to say that there is this row of an infinite number of falling dominoes and there is no first domino.

Experience confirms this. The length of time from the supposed ‘infinite’ past to our present cannot be infinite. Our present state of existence doesn’t manifest infinity/eternality. Science has not yet advanced to a point when it would have already sent a manned landing mission on Mars, or a manned journey beyond the solar system. Scientists haven’t yet produced a single living cell out of combining accurate elements and their proportions. And guess what else? Atheists have not yet fully eradicated the pest of religion from the earth. The universe is not infinite/eternal in reference to our present traveling back in the past.

Science: One of the most reliable laws of Physics (say your Scientists) is the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Entropy) which affirms that the tendency of things left to themselves is randomness, disorder, chaos, entropy. Applied to matter and energy, energy becomes less and less available as it is converted and used to perform work. When it finally becomes unavailable, the tendency of matter is to disintegrate. That’s the reason why our batteries are drained; buildings crumble, stars get old and die, living things die. POINT: If the universe is infinitely old then energy would have been totally used up an infinitely long time ago. Present existence would have been a total desolation. Again experience does not prove this. The Bible is true after all in saying “This world and all that belongs to it passes away, but he who does the will of God lives forever.”

Therefore, the physical universe has a beginning. It underwent a state of existence “ex nihilo” [out of nothing]. It is “created” by “Something” greater than itself, more intelligent than itself and independent of itself.

- - - - - - End of Debate - - - - - -

CONCLUSION: Disappointing, but not surprising. Atheism is not an issue of the intellect but of morality and spirituality. Someone once said, "The atheist cannot adequately explain the world even to another atheist, but they certainly have no problem agreeing among themselves there is no God. Misery loves company." The Word of God consistently proves its self true as it accurately exposes the hideous substance under the supposedly rational veneer of atheism: "The FOOL hath said in his heart, There is no God. [Is it because they find no proof? Oh no, but because...] They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good" (Psalm 14:1).

Return to Article Listing

HOME