In yesterday’s post, I discussed several ways to expose the fallacies that God-deniers sometimes use to keep from being exposed when they claim:
“being an atheist simply means that there’s not sufficient evidence for your sky daddy“
It’s not uncommon for them to try to bluster their way to an online argument victory. So listen to their claims and hold them to account for their assertions. When they have to “show their cards”, it’s unsuited 3, 5, 6, 9 and an Uno card. Now sometimes, the God-denier will off an assertion something a little more outrageous like:
“There’s absolutely no evidence for your sky daddy” – AggregateOfInternetAtheists
Let’s look at the serious problems with this incomprehensively lazy assertion:
- God-deniers have no slot in their epistemology for absolutes. For God-deniers, in a cosmos made only of matter, there are no absolutes – there’s only particles and aggregations of particles
- Those who deny God cannot account for the preconditions necessary for the concept of evidence.
- Is this atheist aware of ALL evidence in the cosmos such that she could assert that “there’s no evidence for God”? The honest atheist would have to admit that they are not privy to all evidence in the cosmos. Conversely, God IS privy to all knowledge/evidence in the universe and He has revealed some of that evidence so that Christians can be certain of those things
- Now here’s the really important point: What does evidence for God look like? For someone to say “There’s no evidence for a cobra” – they would have to know what a cobra is like. How would you describe a cobra so that you could definitively say “There’s no evidence for a cobra.” In the same way, for someone to declare “There’s no evidence for God” they would have to know what evidence for God looks like. Press the atheist on this because they are bluffing. As soon as they realize that they cannot sufficiently formulate what evidence for God is like, their bluff is blown.
Don’t be afraid to call the God-denier’s bluff. They are not holding any good cards, and by God’s amazing grace Christians most definitely are. Call their bluff, but do so with gentleness and respect
Be sure to check out the links (blue text) that are saturated throughout this post as most of the “leg-work” was completed by people much smarter than me…for whose work I am very grateful!
Excellent brother. Love this series. I look forward to Bluff 3.0.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good apologetics suggestion; that’s one further way to press the antithesis back on them
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Now here’s the really important point: What does evidence for God look like? For someone to say “There’s no evidence for a cobra” – they would have to know what a cobra is like. How would you describe a cobra so that you could definitively say “There’s no evidence for a cobra.” In the same way, for someone to declare “There’s no evidence for God” they would have to know what evidence for God looks like. Press the atheist on this because they are bluffing. As soon as they realize that they cannot sufficiently formulate what evidence for God is like, their bluff is blown.”
Funny how the bible gives us quite a lot of description on what this god “is like”, and there is no evidence for any such being.
Pingback: Late January 2023 Presuppositional Apologetics’ Links | The Domain for Truth
You do an admirable job with your presuppositional apologetics, but the point I’d like to share with you, is that it just sounds like overly intellectual nonsense to most people. Telling someone they can’t account for the preconditions necessary for concept of evidence, and the rest of the presuppositional arguments, really just cash out to arrogance. What you’re really saying is, my way of accounting for these things is better than yours. As if the unbeliever cares. Unbelievers have a concept of evidence, and they account for that concept in a way that is acceptable to themselves. If you want to say you reject their means of accounting for things, that’s fine, you can come up with your own way. But telling them they are unable to account for things, when clearly they feel fine with how they account for things, is not a winning argument. At best it’s arrogance, at worst it’s dishonest.
You make a fair point that it’s easy for an apologist to fall into the trap of “winning the argument”. It’s unlikely that I will stop presenting arguments that I think are most biblical, but I can grow in the way that I share the message – with greater trust in Jesus and greater humility (recognizing that if not for grace, I too would be in the same position as the unbeliever).