Agnostics Who Call Themselves Christians
I have come across agnostics who call themselves Christians such as "Seth". An agnostic who calls himself a Christian thinks it judgmental when a Christian identifies him as being unsaved because he refuses to give his life to the God who proves Himself in nature (Rom. 1.20) and instead just believes in whatever blindly because he says he can't know anyway. Why assume this? If God says He has a proof, then He has a proof that leaves you without excuse. Why reject what our Creator says? Stop being a fake Christian. Stop being dishonest with yourself.
If the proof of nature is given and it can't be overturned, then what's the problem? Why separate yourself from God like that? Nature tells us what? It tells us there is always a cause in nature, so anything natural needs a cause from something. Therefore, it can't just pop into existence from nothing. Don't try to be couth and say that some particles seem to pop into existence just because you don't know the cause. Bring down your prideful assuming nature and let the overwhelming evidence take hold there are trillions of causes in nature. You can, thus, be 100% certain nature needs a cause.
You can also be 100% certain the universe could not always have existed, because if it did, mankind would have approximated into that alleged past eternity, but mankind would not still be sinning to the existent he still does along the exponential progression of conscience he is clearly on. This proves unequivocally the universe or alleged universes couldn't have been going on for an eternity of the past.
An agnostic who calls himself a Christian asked me, "Do you not see that there is a difference between a blind and unsupported faith, and a grounded faith based on scripture, observation and experience that is not 100% provable by science?" No. There is no difference since the latter could be wrong, so it is in doubt. A square circle is 100% impossible. A married bachelor is 100% impossible. You can be 100% sure about the fact that nature can't always have existed nor pop into existence from nothing. You are "without excuse". How about trust what God says rather than go your own independent way with your opinions? Without a proof, you would be justified in having a excuse such as not 100% evidence.
The same agnostic asked me, "Could you please explain how you make the enormous logical leap from 'being without excuse' to 'The existence of God is 100% provable by science'? Why does this have to be the case for men to be without excuse?" As was already said, since it is fully proven, and easy enough for anyone to understand, the responsibility is on you to receive God of the Bible. A person did not have to get a ph.d. or live in some particular place on earth to have the proper vantage point. This is inherent knowledge we all possess given to us by God. The problem is that many suppress it at their own peril due to their sin nature and selfish endeavors that block the path of righteousness.
The usual suspects are always presented; nothing is really new under the sun. The agnostic (and false Christian) then tries to fathom cycles theory, but of course that is silly because it not only violates existing scientific knowledge that the universe will never collapse on itself because dark energy is a force pushing exponentially faster than matter and dark matter are collapsing in; but even if there were cycles, this still would place man into the approximately of that past eternity of cycles, so that man would not still be sinning to the extent he still does along the exponential progression of conscience he is clearly on.
Finally, statistics corroborates the fact that you can be 100% sure because of the progression of those statistics are increasingly moving in one direction exponentially. With each additional century we find more causes and never find something happening from nothing. What we did not know the cause for we often find the cause to. And likewise we see more of the exponential progression of conscience in man. Ergo, we are left with no other possibility than God's perfect proof of Himself by observing nature, and we can stand on Romans 1.20 rather than blindly believe in what we deem to be God without support.
That is surely Satan who would make you think you don't need to prove all things as the Bible says. God would never take that position so to deny this is to deny God for self. How can God's standards be below our own? If we need to prove things in this life to grow and develop, then how can God demand less of us? Unless what you deem to be God is really the evil spirit, again proving the "agnostic Christian" is really no Christian at all.
That's the proof of nature in a nutshell, but of course there is the proof of resurrection proving who God is. For nearly two millenia, nobody has been able to depend on a naturalistic explanation for the data supporting the resurrection claim--the very data most scholars concede with substantial reasons--though they may not want to give their lives to Christ. Since the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead, people don't allow themselves to die for what they know to be a lie, and group hallucinations are impossible according to modern psychology, we are left with the inextricable fact Jesus raised Himself from the dead because He is God.
Praise the Lord for this discernment! Amen.
