Recent Blogs Posts

Are Atheists Going to Hell?

The proof for God is very simple and does not need a PhD in quantum physics or MD. God is no respecter of persons. A brilliant scholar or scientist has no advantage over a mongoloid child. Since everyone has access to this proof readily available in their own thoughts and conscience what then is that proof for God? (thus rendering atheism and agnosticism nonsense)

Start from what we know. We know that nature always has a cause and effect. We observe trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence of something from nothing, which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't need to know every last thing to know God exists. An overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt will suffice. Besides if your position is that you need to know all things to know if God exists you are essentially saying you have to be God all-knowing to know if God exists which is absurd since obviously you are not God, and frankly, you're not that bright. You can't even remember fully what happened to you yesterday. And I am sure you sinned multiple times yesterday as well, but God has no sin (unhealthy habits). The audacity and arrogance of some people claim they have no errors or sin in their thoughts and conduct.

The only other option is the universe always existed, but this fails on its head, because if there was this alleged infinite regress of cause and effects of nature, you would have had, by that definition, an eternity to come into being before now so you should have already happened. And you would never have existed because a past eternity would continue for eternity in the past never to reach this point since it goes on forever. That's the nature of the silliness of a past eternity. It is, merely, a man made fantasy, construct and false.

And so nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God.

Now that you know God exists, find out where He reveals Himself. Just as we are personal and accessible so must God be for He cannot be less than His creation. There are only 3 faiths in the world that are accessible, comprising 90% of all faiths: Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. But only one teaches salvation is not by works lest anyone should boast. The other two are works based faiths (thus, false). Man's arrogance thinks he can bridge the ...

Dan Barker (dbarker@ffrf.org),

For me it is simple. We observe trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence of something from nothing. So this overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt tells us nature can't start up from nothing. Nor can it always have existed, because if there was an infinite regress of cause and effects, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. So nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God. Thus, atheism is false.

Knowing God exists, ask which one is true since only one can be true for God does not contradict Himself, and there can only be one uncreated Creator otherwise you have to ask where these others came from. God is accessible and personal because He can't be less than us with these qualities we are endowed with. The greater can never be less than the lesser. Since God is personal and accessible, we need only consider the accessible faiths that make up the vast majority of faiths: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism.

Islam is false because you can't come along six centuries later with no evidence to claim Jesus didn't die on the cross. That's an assumed religion. Hinduism fails because its god Brahma is said to be amoral, but again, how can the Creator have a morality below that of His creation? Moreover, reincarnation doesn't effectively address our fallen nature as you get endless chances to come back as a frog then become a human being again if you were a good frog. How can you place the burden of man's destiny on the brain of a frog? Very neatly we see that salvation is not by works lest any man should boast. No amount of self-strength, self-reflection or frog work can bridge the gap between you and God. Therefore, we know God intervenes and even enters His creation as Jesus did. Truly unique among the world's faiths. Without knowing anything else then we know God of the Bible is the correct one.

Very simply, there are no known naturalistic explanations to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. The Minimal Facts Approach (coined by Gary R. Habermas - the leading scholar on the planet today for the resurrection) is where most scholars agree that the Apostles truly believed Jesus rose from the dead and consider 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2 Paul's true testimony and authorship. He said he spent 15 days ...

An atheist once said to me that since nothingness does not exist it has no rules, so there are no rules preventing non-existence from creating or causing something to happen. The flaw in that thinking is that though it is true nothingness has no rules, there is nothing for it to prevent since there is just nothing, so remains non-existence always non-existent. You can be confident in saying nothing always leaves nothing from nothing.

Another way you can respond to this is to say since nothingness has no rules it has no rule to cause something, so nothingness can't cause anything. It likewise has no rules to prevent something, but since there is not anything then there is nothing to prevent. If theoretically there was something to prevent then 'no rule to cause something' and 'no rule to prevent something' are contradicting each other. That which is self-contradictory is flawed in its reasoning. Either way you approach this problem, something still can't come from nothing.

The reason why a billion pound gorilla can't stomp NYC is because it doesn't exist. The reason why there are no square circles that can cause other shapes (assuming they could) is because square circles don't exist. Does a square circle have no rules to prevent the creation of rectangles? It has no such rules but since there is only nothing (no rectangles or triangles for that matter), there is nothing to prevent. A square circle has no rule to cause something either so it can't cause something. If there was something 'it has no rule to prevent,' again, that would be self-contradictory to 'having no rule to cause things.' That which is self-contradictory is inherently flawed in its approach; so that false approach is to play with nothingness as though it could have rules or no rules.

Nothingness is simply non-existence, and giving rules or no rules to it is a false approach because it has neither rule nor no rules. Having no rules is itself a rule. So you can't have nothingness with a rule of no rules since non-existence has no rules. We only have evidence for cause and effect from something, no hard evidence of something from nothing. We observe trillions of cause and effects and not one iota of evidence of something from nothing. Let us rest on the evidence and the evidence alone without having to be cute about rules or no rules. I am satisfied with that fact.

The same atheist also said to me that the mechanics of nothingness need to ...

I don't understand how anyone could be an atheist other than total mindless belligerent obstinacy, because obviously, that which does not exist can't cause anything so the universe can't come from nothing. We only have evidence for causation from something. Some atheists claim outside the universe doesn't abide in the cause and effect inside of the universe, but if that were true then the universe would never come into existence. Of course God can created from outside of time and space since God would transcend time and space. People say God can't create without time. Sure He can. He creates timelessly.

The only other approach I have ever seen atheists attempt is to claim the universe always existed in an infinite regress of cause and effects; but of course, that's false, because if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now so you should have already happened, having had an eternity to do so. It gets even doubly worse for the atheist, because if a past eternity was true, then you should never have existed because that past eternity would go on for eternity never reaching this point. Therefore, infinite regress is a man made delusion.

I guess I should say why I believe Jesus is God over other faiths. The reason I believe this is because I can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. Group hallucinations are medically impossible - people never hallucinate the same thing. People don't willingly die for what they know is a lie so the Apostles truly believed it; that is, they did not fraudulently make up their eyewitness testimony. Swoon theory fails because Jesus wouldn't convince anyone He is the risen Messiah all tattered and torn, scourged down the bone, holes in His feet and hands and unable to walk on the 3rd day. Legends theory fails because the Apostles believed it from the beginning, set up the first churches on the resurrection appearances of Jesus, and even Paul who was converted about 2 years after the cross said he spent 15 days with Peter, with James, and with John who were key eyewitnesses. Their faith goes right back to the cross. I know the movie "The Enemy" (2014) might convince someone Jesus had a twin brother, but his character and nature couldn't fool the Apostles who had spent 3 years with Jesus.

I believe a sinner is eternally separated from ...

I don't think we should believe things without some sort of support or evidence for it. For example, I don't think we should be atheist or agnostic because there is nothing to support those ideas, but we do have evidence for God and evidence for the Christian God as follows as I see it.

I know that non-existence can't cause anything to come into being because it doesn't exist. That should be enough, but I also have another reason which is we see cause and effect in nature over and over, time and again, with no hard evidence of something from nothing without assuming it. Therefore, this is a solid that nature ALWAYS needs a cause whether it be the first event of nature or anywhere in between. You don't need to know all things to know if this is true, just enough evidence is all you need which is what we have. Besides, if you had to know all things, you are claiming you would have to be God "all-knowing" (omniscient) to know for sure, but that is self-contradictory, because obviously you are not God, and do you remember creating the universe? How forgetful of you being all-knowing! Funny.

The only other thing that one can try to fathom to fight off God is to say nature always existed, but that has two insurmountable serious flaws which are:

1) if nature always existed in an eternity of the past of cause and effects, then by that very definition, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now so you should have already happened. And...

2) you should never have existed because an alleged past eternity would continue to go on forever in the past so as to never reach this point.

So by this overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, we can be certain nature needs a cause outside of itself, that is, outside of time and space, being uncreated. And that is what we are talking about the uncreated when we speak of God.

Not only is God uncreated, always existed, but He can't be below us for the Creator is always greater than the created. Therefore, since we are personal, accessible, have a mind and self-consciousness, God must have all these attributes too. Anything less is debasing God for your own twisted and selfish thoughts.

There is only 3 faiths that are pervasive enough (accessible enough around the globe) to meet the necessary criteria worth considering: Islam, Hinduism, Christianity. All other faiths or beliefs or world-views ...

The reason I am a Christian is because I don’t know how to disprove the proof for God and who God is.

I see trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence of something from nothing, so this evidence is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to know that the first event of the universe like all the events of the universe has a cause and can’t come from nothing (i.e. non-existence). Non-existence can't produce anything as it does not exist. Claiming non-existence caused existence belongs in the loony bin!

And there can’t be an infinite regress of cause and effects in nature either, because if there had been, you would have, by that very definition, an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. And you should never have existed because a past eternity of nature would go on forever never reaching this point of your existence. So a past eternity of nature is inherently contradictory and a man-made superstition.

Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated whom we call God. But God can’t have morals below our own so He must have perfect morality. He can't be inaccessible (an absentee landlord, i.e. deistic) for that is beneath us, contrary to our own way of being, for we entreat our fellow man in need or at least we should. He is not impersonal for we are personal beings. He must have a mind because a mind is needed to create a mind: the lesser can't produce the greater: a mind can't originate from lesser non-consciousness. He has self-consciousness, because consciousness is needed to create consciousness in creatures. Life has a soul, that divine spark of life when spirit makes contact with the body, which can't be explained solely by the dust of the ground by itself.

There are only 3 religions or faiths on the planet that are accessible and pervasive enough worth taking a gander at for a personal God: Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. We know Islam is false because you can’t come along six centuries later without anything to support your claim that Jesus never died on the cross or even went to the cross. Otherwise, you could spout off anything as being the truth. But we are evidentialists not suppositionalists.

Hinduism fails because its god is said to be amoral which is below our own morality. And reincarnation, coming back as a chicken if you are overly sinful, ...