Proofs of God's Non-Existence

Are there disproofs of God's existence? I shutter to think. (Maybe that's my problem.) Tell me how I can know that God does not exist.

Cartoon: Modified

Modified from the version posted by Kevin. My sincere apologies to the fine original artist at atheistcartoons.com

Confusion at the Gate

Kevin Parry had a dream. The angels at the Pearly Gates couldn't decide if he was to be allowed into heaven. He was once a Christian, but now he's not and the angels have a dilemma. Kevin creatively addresses the issue of what we in Christian circles call 'eternal security'. Since nobody at Kevin's blog had much to add concerning the theological point in question I thought I'd see if anybody is willing to take it up here. For convenience I have presented most of Kevin's original post and a mostly original, somewhat modified version of my comments after that.

Kevin's original post:

Kevin: Um, hello? What's happened to me?

Angel 1: Hello there. You have just died. Welcome to the gates of heaven.

Kevin: Heaven! Oh, my word! I was wrong. God really exists!

Angel 2: Indeed he does. Now, what is your name?

Kevin: My name?

Angel 1: Yes, we need to find your file.

Kevin: Okay. I'm Kevin Parry. That's Parry with an 'a', not an 'e'. (A few moments pass as a large file is recovered from a cabinet and placed on the table. Both angels start reading)

Angel 2: Oh, dear. I'm sorry, but it looks as if you cannot enter heaven. Eternal torment for you, I'm afraid.

Kevin: Darn! I knew I should've taken Pascal's Wager more seriously.

Angel 2: You see, your file says that you are an atheist. I will make arrangements for your transfer to Hades. . .

Angel 1: Hang on a moment! It says here that Kevin was a Christian. That means he qualifies for heaven.

Angel 2: (sighs) No, no. Kevin was a Christian, yes. But he has since rejected the saving grace of our Lord Jesus. He has lost his salvation.

Angel 1: Since when was that a rule? Once saved, always saved, right?

Angel 2: Where did you learn that?

Angel 1: Err . . . well, that's my interpretation of the Word.

Angel 2: You have obviously interpreted incorrectly. The Word states that any person who stops believing is like the branch that breaks off the olive tree. Romans 11:17-22.

Angel 1: I beg to differ. The Lord himself, In John 10:27-29, says that no believer can ever be plucked out of his hand.

Angel 2: You are not reading that verse in context.

Kevin: Excuse me. . . .

Angel 1: But many of the Lord's followers believe in eternal security. Take the Calvinists, for instance. . .

Angel 2: The Calvinists are wrong. It's the Methodists that have it right: a human can loose his or her salvation.

Kevin: Sorry to interrupt. Are you going to let me in or not? I've had a bad day, being dead and all, and I want to get this over with.

Angel 1: Sorry about all this. You see, there are so many different teachings on important issues; so many interpretations of the Word; so many verses that seem to contradict each other. It's all a bit confusing really.

Angel 2: I'm afraid you will have to go back to earth until this is sorted out with the boss up stairs.

Kevin: Does this mean that I will have a second chance at salvation?

Angel 1: Yes.

Angel 2: No.

* * *

My postscript:

Serendipitously, Jesus walks past within sight of the gates.

Angels 1 and 2 (yelling out in unison): Jesus! Jesus!

Jesus : Yes, what is it?

Angel 1: Lord, we have a problem here. This gentleman's records are somewhat ambigious. Angel 2 and I disagree as to whether he is eligible for admission.

Jesus (under His breath, shaking His head in resigned frustration): Why must we repeat this nonsense every day? (To Kevin) Man!

Kevin: Yes, Jesus.

Jesus: Would you like to come in?

Kevin: Not really.

Jesus: Then go.

Angel 2: Ha! I told you.

Angel 1: But Sir, I have documentation that says this man is a Christian.

Angel 2: ...and he thinks that once a person is saved that he can never become unsaved, but that can't be right. This man here is proof!

Angel 1: What about John 10:27-29 where it says no one can pluck them out of your hand?

Jesus: A worthy passage.

Angel 2: But what about Romans 11:17-22 where it talks about branches that, once broken, can't be grafted back in?

Jesus: Another worthy passage. Both are true.

Angel 2: So can the saved lose their salvation or not? Why is there so much confusion?

Jesus: Have you ever wondered why you two are outside the Pearly Gates?

Angel 1: It is a position of honor!

Angel 2: We guard the Gates of Heaven!

Angel 1: Yes, we are both very proud of our service.

Angel 2: So will you settle this matter for us?

Jesus: Those who are granted admission into Heaven come directly into my presence. My Father gave them to me; they don't need to have their credentials checked by you two.

Angel 1: But Sir, the documents...

Jesus: I hold the Book of Life; all other documents are meaningless.(Looking at Kevin) You are free to go.

Kevin: Thank you.

* * *

The dilemma Kevin poses regarding eternal security (ES) is not the typical one. Most people who do not believe in ES think that a certain level of sinfulness (or any sin at all) in a Christian's life will 'undo' that person's salvation. Unless that person repents before he or she dies, it's the Lake of Fire for them. Others, like me, who hold to ES believe that salvation is irrevocable since it's difficult to see why God would originally grant it to me at a time when I exhibited (or inherently possessed) a 'certain level of sinfulness', only to revoke it later for the same reason. In other words, if my sin could make God reject me, why did He accept me in my sin in the first place? The John 10:27-29 passage Angel 1 refers to is a popular one for the pro-ES folk and it goes a little something like this:

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.

In Kevin's post, Angel 2 raises the issue of context, which is always important. Who are the sheep? What does it mean to be "snatched out"? What does Jesus mean when He says His Father has given them to Him? In context this passage is pretty easy to understand. I won't exegete it here. Additionally, if we have questions about the meaning of a passage we can look to see if the concept is affirmed elsewhere in Scripture. For instance we read in Romans 8:27-39:

For I [the Apostle Paul] am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This seems to offer some support to the pro-ES position. But again what about context? Who is "us"?, What are all these things that are listed? Is there anything Paul slyly left out of that list? If one had the time or inclination they could pursue it further.

Angel 2 counters with Romans 11:17-22 which says:

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.

If context is important for the John passage it's also important here. Who or what are the branches? Who or what is the root? Who are those who were grafted in to replace those who were broken off? Can this imagery be validly stretched to include Kevin or any other individual as a branch?

If you're interested in the answers to these questions there are plenty of resources available and I'd be happy to suggest some.

* * *

It seems to me that Kevin has juxtaposed his knowledge of Christianity against his knowledge of other competing philosophies and Christianity came up short. It is possible he believes disagreement among Christians is evidence that 1) Christian truths, if there are any, can't be discerned from Scripture, 2) Christianity is false due to its internal contradictions which give rise to such disagreements, and 3) Christianity is false since there would be no disagreements if it were objectively true.

Kevin has stated in earlier posts that, even if God exists, he does not want to spend eternity in Heaven. Yet he also claims to have wanted to at some point in the past. This is where Kevin's argument is atypical. The 'ethical-standard' aspect of salvation is usually what's debated which asks, "How good must I be to keep God from rejecting me?" Instead Kevin says, "I reject God."

I don't know anybody who would take the side of Angel 1. I'm pro-ES and I don't. I don't think Angel 2 is correct, either. Why? Because being 'saved' is not another way of saying that one acknowledges theistic or even specifically Christian concepts, nor is salvation validated by or reliant on emotional experiences.

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me....My Father...has given them to me.

One way to define salvation is given in John 10—it is being known by Jesus because God has given you to Him. If you are known by Jesus then you know Jesus in a way that can't be denied or rejected as a mere intellectual acknowledgment or a passing emotional experience can. I am confident that a person named Kevin Parry lives in South Africa. But maybe "Kevin" is an concocted cyber-persona. I could become convinced no real Kevin does actually exist if I were presented with some counter-evidence. Kevin's wife, Cori, is confident that a person named Kevin Parry lives in South Africa. That same evidence would not cause her to change her mind. She has her own evidence. Maybe a particularly clever philosophy professor (if there is such a thing) could give her a moment's doubt, but she will just return home to her evidence. Will her evidence be sufficient to cause me to believe as strongly as she does? No; not until I experience Kevin in a similar manner.

Christians have this kind of evidence (and more tangible kinds as well). Sometimes a philosophical argument or a troublesome experience will challenge that belief, but those who know God because the are known by God will not, rationally cannot, turn away.


* * *

My goal here was to lay a very basic foundation for understanding what being a Christian, or being 'saved' means. In doing so I have tried to show that both angels in the dream may have erred by classifying anyone who claims to be a Christian as truly 'saved'. I have not tried specifically to refute Kevin's basic point (conclusion #2), that Christianity has an inherent contradiction regarding this crucial issue. Only those with some small knowledge of Scripture could even begin to make that case, and only those with some small knowledge of Scripture could begin to appreciate the case against it.

Mastec Motors: Scenario A: The Walker

Part 2 of a response to Kevin Parry's A Difference of Paradigms
(Read Part 1)

A customer walks into a Mastec Motors showroom and is approached by a salesman.

Salesman (S): Hello, can I help you?
Customer (C): Hi. Yea, maybe. I've heard a lot of talk about the 320i Turbo and I'd like to know more about it, maybe take a test drive.

S: Well, I'm glad you stopped by. But first let me say that I take my job very seriously and I want to make sure that the 320i is the car for you. If I sell you a car and you're not happy with it, even if it works exactly as advertised, then we've got an unhappy customer and our reputation is damaged. You understand, don't you?
C: That makes sense.

S: Good. So let me ask you a quasi-philosophical question.
C (looking puzzled): Uhhhh...I really rather talk cars.

S: If you want a 320i you've gotta answer the quasi-philosophical question, it's company policy.
C: Alright.

S: What's a car for?
C (puzzled): What's a car for?

S: Right.
C (pauses): Cars are for taking people to places.

S: Very good. But people can go places without a car, can't they? For example they can walk, bike, or take a bus, right?
C: Sure.

S: So, what's a car for?
C: Is there anyone else I can talk to?

S: Sorry, no.
C (sighs): Ok. Well...cars are for taking people places they can't walk or bike to, and are not near the bus lines.

S: Very good. Cars take people places they can't easily get to any other way. Is that a fair restatement?
C: Yes.

S: Ok. Now for a more personal question. Are there places you want to go that you can't get to any other way than by car?
C: Well...

S: I ask you that because I noticed that you didn't drive up to the showroom, you walked.
C: That's right.

S: Do you currently own a car?
C: No, I don't.

S: Do you have a need to go places you can't walk to?
C: Well, no, not really. Where I live I can walk everywhere I need to go. My job, my friends', restaurants, libraries, the doctor, bars, Whole Foods, the Apple® store; I can get to these places and many more on my own.

S: Sounds like you're pretty well set; self-contained, as it were.
C: I suppose I am.

S: So why are you here?
C: I can't deny that this is a car-centric culture. People without a car are considered oddballs—or worse. Some of my walker friends would never set foot inside a dealership. Some even advocate making cars illegal, but every now and then I like to hear what you guys have to say. After all, I'm an open-minded and reasonable person. Can you prove to me that the Mastec 320i Turbo is my best transportation option?

S: If you don't believe that there are places you need a car to get to, I doubt any amount of performance data, reliability statistics, expert opinions, or even a test drive will convince you to buy. If you consider a concept irrational, the details are irrelevant.
C: But you shouldn't care whether I'd actually use the car. Aren't you supposed to get me to buy one even if I leave it in the garage.

S: No. That wouldn't do either of us any good.
C: So I guess you have to convince me first that there are interesting things happening in distance places that I missing out on.

S: Do you think I can do that?
C: Many car-owners have tried. But, of course they have to believe. If they don't they'll realize how much they've wasted.

S: So they are hopelessly biased.
C: Biased and, with all due respect, weak.

S: Weak?
C: Yes. They can't take the strain of life in the city. They dream of distant, idyllic meadows or white-sand beaches or other such delusions so they can deal with—or ignore—the dirt and violence outside their windows. Instead of accepting their situation, much less trying to improve things, they buy a car and read travel brochures all day long.

S: And that bothers you?
C: It wouldn't, but they think that being car owners makes them better than everyone else. They feel the need to tell everyone how great their car is, or how much better their "far-off country" is to the city. When they hear that I prefer to walk, they react with anger, or worse, pity. The oh-you-poor-thing look—I can't stand that!

S: I understand. But can you blame believers in distant, idyllic meadows and such for telling other people about them? Don't you share exciting news with your friends?
C: Exciting news, sure, but I keep my fantasies to myself. I have no desire to escape from the city. I like it here despite its problems. It's real, it's dangerous, it's unpredictable. It's fun! And anyway, idyllic meadows, if they did exist, would bore me to tears; everyone sitting around watching the grass grow doesn't sound idyllic to me. No, I'm sorry, I'm not interested in idyllic meadows. Regardless, the city is all there is; there are no "far-off places" of any sort.

S: Ok. I have another question for you.
C: Alright.

S: There are many components that go into a car and many other things without which it wouldn't run. Can you name some?
C: Well, there's gasoline, tires, various metal parts, is that what you mean?

S: Exactly. And where do car-owners get gasoline?
C: Gas stations, of course. They're on every street corner, you can't miss them with their big, obnoxious signs. But you know that it's not just car owners that use gas. I have a gas stove and a gas heating system. Almost everybody uses it.

S: True, I can't think of anybody that does not use some form of processed oil.
C: But car owner's think—

S: Wait, my question is not about what car-owners think. It's about gas, and tires, for example.
C: What about them?

S: Where do they come from?
C: Gas comes from gas stations, like I said, and tires can be bought there as well. Or you can get tires at a hundred other places. By the way, like with gas, tires are not just for cars.

S: Sure. Gas stations, however, only distribute gasoline to the public. They don't extract it or refine it. Even though there's a gas station on every corner have you ever seen a oil rig or a refinery in the city?
C: Out on the edge of the city there's vast industrial areas with huge tanks...

S: That's just another level of distribution. I'm talking about manufacture. Does gas come from the within the city? And although tires can be bought at hundreds of places have you ever seen a single rubber tree, much less the many millions it would take to produce all the rubber products sold and used in the city?
C: No, but it's a big city. I haven't been everywhere. The fact is we have gas and tires, so there must be oil rigs and rubber trees in the city somewhere.

S: Why's that?
C: Because, as I said, the city is all there is. Maybe I've never seen them but that's no reason to make up stories about distant lands with vast oil reserves or acres of rubber trees.

S: But that's a reasonable hypothesis, isn't it?
C: Only if you are naive enough to believe in distant lands in the first place. Even if I were that naive, I'd still have no reason to by a Mastec 320i Turbo, which is, if I recall, the reason I came in here.

S: It seems you have no need of any car.
C: Right.

S: (says nothing)
C: Well, it's been interesting; however, once again I leave a dealership without any desire to buy a car.

S: I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help. All I ask is that you think about our conversation. Keep your eyes open as you walk around the city. Don't dismiss ideas that don't fit your theory, but consider them with the same open-mindedness and reasonableness that you do for anything else. Maybe I'll see you back here again. Stop by anytime.
C: I'll do that, thanks. Bye.

S: Goodbye.

Mastec Motors

Part 1 of a response to Kevin Parry's A Difference of Paradigms. Please read it you haven't yet.

MEMO
From: CEO and Founder of Mastec Motors
To: All Sales Staff

It has come to my attention that some members of our sales staff have abandoned our long-established standards in dealing with customers by brushing-off their reasonable requests for evidence supporting our claims of industry superiority. Blind faith has never been the byword at Mastec Motors. Read the Manual. True, some prospective buyers come into our showrooms ready sign on the bottom line with little more than a warm hello for a sales pitch. Others, however, need to be persuaded of the validity of our claims, and to those we are required to give an answer. Again, read the manual. Our voluminous customer list is filled with men and women who where initially skeptical. In fact, many of our most well-known, respected, and effective advocates were once unconvinced of our superiority. Some were even out-spoken and hostile critics. Such customers as these did not merely roll-over submissively upon hearing a salesperson say, "Trust me."

Some of the blame for this unorthodox salesmanship may fall on our man in Denmark. I personally feel he has been misunderstood, nonetheless I wonder if his work has done us more harm than good.

But I am convinced that the primary reason for this unacceptable sales method is the current distain for intellectual exercise. In addition to our founding documents, there are libraries full of evidence in support of our claims; but if they are not read all that work is wasted.

In the coming days I will present scenarios that more properly convey approved sales methods in the hopes that such disgraceful techniques as represented here are not repeated.