I had an interesting discussion with a professed atheist over the phone last night who doesn't believe that God exists, but wants to believe that God exists.

This person was brought up in an Adventist home and was baptized three times before finally deciding that God doesn't really exist.

One reason, and probably the main reason why God doesn't exist is that, if God really existed, He wouldn't allow all the suffering that is going on in the world, especially the raping and molesting of children.

He asks two questions:

1 - Why does God allow the raping and molesting of children?

2 - Can it be proven that God exists?

As to the first question, this has been debated since Job's time. I'll not start on it here.

As to the second question, I would want to know this: "What would be taken to BE "proof" of God's existance?

to the Maritime forums.

What it would take to be considered proof of God's existence is a good question, that I would like us to try and answer.

I learned in college that everyone must make a faith choice (to break the vicious cycle between one's epistemology and metaphysical beliefs--but that's a topic for a philosophy class). We must accept God's existence by faith, or accept His non-existence by faith. I believe that God has given us the freedom of choice to such a degree that we are not forced, via indisputable proofs, to believe He exists.

Having said that, there are great bodies of evidence in support of our Creator God. What it will take for each individual person to accept the evidence and believe in Him will vary widely. I believe that God has provided us much evidence in every possible field of study, so that no one need be left without evidence that will appeal to him or her personally.

Once presented with this evidence, however, the choice is left with the individual: to believe or not to believe?

What is the specialty area of the professed atheist you spoke with, Daryl? Perhaps we can provide some evidence that would appeal to him within his own realm of understanding.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I find it interesting that he says that really wants to believe, but won't believe unless Christ actually appears to him as He did to Thomas, who said that unless he sees and touches Him, he won't believe.

He said that God can't exist for the reason that, if He existed, He wouldn't allow all the suffering that is going on in the world, especially in the area of children being raped and abused.

No one can "prove" God does or does not exist. It's a matter of faith. People who choose to believe He exists and who choose to abide in Jesus experience peace of mind that defies logic and reason. Therein lies their "proof". It cannot be faked, feigned, or fabricated.

People like the person you're describing haven't reached rock bottom, they haven't fallen far enough, they haven't reached the point where the only way out is up. For people like that they have to crash and burn big time before they are in a position to seriously consider Jesus as an option. They have to learn the hard way that the world cannot satisfy them or supply them with peace of mind.

To such people, Jesus says, "Come and see. Taste and see." Answering questions like the ones you're describing is fruitless and pointless if the person isn't lying flat on their back looking up. Then their questions will be, "How can I have peace of mind like you do?" In the meantime, then, a good way to handle such people is to let your light shine.

This may be true, but it brings up a whole new set of questions, such as "What's going on if I believe in Jesus and don't have this "peace of mind that defies logic and reason." Is my experience invalid? Am I not "trying hard enough"? Isn't God supposed to give me this peace? This leads to the whole guilt thing and self-focus.

Another set of questions involves people who do not know Jesus and have peace of mind. Muslims, Buddhists, Athiests, ect., all have followers who are perfectly content with what they believe.

So I cannot accept personal feeling as being any proof of anything, much less religious validation.

I must also ask the question of why, given the apparent importance of knowing God, did God not give empirical proof of his existance? (Do not misinterpret; I am a FIRM believer in God and his existance.)

Well, for now, let's use the gentleman's own logic as a starting point:

----------

Theorem: God cannot exist if He allows all the suffering that we see in the world.

First, let us put down four Assumptions:

1. God cannot exist in part: either we have a whole God, or no God at all.
2. Sin cannot exist in part: either we have sin or we do not.
3. Sin is the source and cause of suffering.
4. Freedom of choice cannot exist in part: either we have this freedom, or we do not.
4a. Corollary: Freedom of choice must necessarily include the freedom to sin and/or to cause suffering to oneself or to others (the result of sin).

Given that the above assumptions hold true, the following must also hold true, if the theorem is to be proven.

1) God cannot allow suffering;
2) Therefore, God cannot allow sin (the cause of suffering); and
3) Therefore, God cannot allow the freedom of choice.

If any one of these three points fails, the theorem must be rejected.

----------

Now, Daryl, would your friend prefer a world stripped of the freedom to choose? How would he like to be forced to do the will of God?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

My initial response to your question is, Yes, if "perfect peace" is eluding them it is because they are doing something wrong. There is nothing wrong with God or His promises.


I have yet to personally meet a non-Christian who experiences "perfect peace". According to God it is impossible.


"Thoughts and feelings combined" make up moral character. Peace is one of the fruits of the Spirit. It seems reasonable to expect "perfect peace" to feel great. Of course there are false feelings we must work to resist.


We have empirical proof if we accept the testimony of people like Adam, Enoch, Noah, Moses, Elijah, Jesus, etc. But, like you, I sometimes wonder why God doesn't provide fresh proof on a daily basis. I believe it makes sense to God to orchestrate things the way He does, so, by faith, I accept it.

(If we go much further down this road we will have to come to some understanding of just what "perfect peace" is, or how it is manifested.)

As to your first point, of course we are doing something wrong; that's what we do. (This does in no way imply there is something wrong with God.) However, when we accept the Gospel in faith, and give our lives to the Lord, believing that "He is able", what else can we do? And as we grow and learn, should not this "peace" be with us, and increasing as we learn more?
However, I have met many Christians who lack this nebulous "peace", and therefore question their experience. Which leads to "I must try harder", and all the works-related baggage.

As to your second point, I have personally had extended discussions with both Muslims and Buddhists who are very happy, peacefull, well-adjusted people, very content with their faith practices. On the other hand, many are NOT happy, but then, many Christians are not happy...

(Just as an aside I'd like chapter and verse for this assertion: "According to God it [perfect peace] is impossible [without him].")

Point three. I disagree with the whole response. Thoughts and feelings not only mean nothing, but are dangerous. Check your SOP. It is NOT reasonable for "perfect peace" to "feel great". This now puts "testable criteria" on "perfect peace", based on how you feel it should express. (Which brings me back to my opening statement that we should at some point define "perfect peace")

Last, "the testimony of people like Adam, Enoch, Noah, Moses, Elijah, Jesus, etc." is not empirical proof. Empirical proof is based on observation and experiment. (ie: something we can test) "The testimony of people like Adam, Enoch, Noah, Moses, Elijah, Jesus, etc." is fine for believing Christians, but bear in mind that we are discussing a professed athiest.

All this is pointless, however, unless we know what the athiest in question would accept as proof of God's existance.