You Know God Exists (Nudge-Nudge, Wink-Wink)
Within the scope of people who claim that God exists, you usually get metaphysical arguments that 'prove' that existence. Arguments like how there must have been a first cause; how life, the Universe and everything is designed and fine-tuned; where did morality come from if not from God, how God is a necessary being, etc. But then again...
You can get some real theist "nut-jobs" like, for example, Christian apologist Sye Ten Bruggencate who gives an absolute proof of God's actual existence as follows. Everyone knows that God actually exists, therefore God actually must exist. And the actual evidence for that according to Bruggencate is stated explicitly in the Bible (Romans 1: 18-21) and you will not question this for God will not be questioned (Romans 9: 20) or mocked (Galatians 6:7). God exists because you know God exists because the Bible says so. So there! Case closed!
So the Bible is absolutely true since it is God's absolute word. Of course how do you know that God didn't lie to you? Well the obvious answer according to Bruggencate is that God doesn't lie. So there! Take that you non-believers and stick it up your - wherever.
Anyway, I gather this must be knowledge you are born with. Maybe it comes as value-adding when you get your officially heaven-issued soul. Anyway, the 'fact' that everyone knows that God actually exists certainly comes as news to me. At birth I thought we were all blank slates and dry sponges ready to absorb and assimilate whatever version of reality (nature and nurture) that reality throws at us. A blank slate means no preconceived concepts of anything, including God.
Anyway, I don't know that God actually exists. I'm sure a newborn baby hasn't a clue. An elderly person with an advanced state of dementia isn't even aware of his / her own existence and that of his / her immediate family far less that of the actual existence of an invisible magic man in the sky. Humans living 50,000 years ago didn't apparently know about God (no cave paintings of an elderly bearded male sitting up in the clouds surrounded by winged angels) and even when writing came to pass the first gods that were written about bore no similarity to the Christian God by any stretch of the imagination. Further, if everybody knew innately that there was just such a God, and only that God, then why have hundreds of other religions come up with drastically differing variation on the theme of deities? How did they arise and evolve? And if we all innately know that God exists, what's the point in sending out missionaries and putting Bibles in hotel rooms?
If you argue that there are other gods that need to be taken into consideration, well there's a ready answer for that too. There are no other gods according to Bruggencate (the Bible differs on this point in numerous chapters and verses), just idols and admitting that other 'idols' exist is idolatry and that's an absolute no-no because God, who you absolutely know exists, says so.
But apparently if you don't know that God exists then you have actually and deliberately suppressed this absolute bit of factual knowledge given to you (presumably by God Himself) for one evil or sinful reason or other.
If you have even half a rational mind to think original thoughts with then I think one can easily dismiss Sye Ten Bruggencate. But don't take my word for it. Watch Bruggencate rant and rave and all but foam at the mouth in debates, interviews and lectures on YouTube. Wow!
I find that it comes down to this.. Deists want to provide the weakest possible argument for existance and I personally don't care. Its fine if you want to beleive that, I don't care. Its the next step that bothers me ..
They go from "It is POSSIBLE that a god exists" so it Is not absurd to believe that my particular book from antiquity is no longer mythhology and fiction. Furthermore it deserves to be treated as a divine authority.
The leap is so large I just can't imagine how they are possibly serious.
Silly circular arguments in which the assumption and the conclusion are essentially the same thing. It's like: I am right because I know I am right, and you know that I am right even if you don't consciously know that you know that I am right. Right?
It is said, "man created God". So, I become a man ti create a god. The god i created I call Taco God. Taco God is any person that has eaten a taco. Tac oil s are real, people are real and people really eat tacos. Atheism illogical. Millions of people have eaten a taco and are now gods by way if eating a taco and they do not even know they are a Taco God.
Fundamentalist "thought" is a fun-house hall of mirrors ... that's actually no fun whatsoever.
Circular reasoning and special pleading and gaslighting are all they have, and Bruggencate at least has the virtue of cutting right to the chase and being loud and proud about it. You know what you're getting.
I really like all the points you make. And to expand on some of your points I would like to make some bold statements maby some of you guys might like to consider 1 I think evolution should not only be a theory of the diversity of the species but maby an actual law of physics, here's what I mean knowing the understanding of how evolution works if you look around at everything in our life when ever changes are made theyre usually made with the attempt to improve opon the Pryor if it does not show to be an improvement it will then get discarded. So I think we live completely in an evolutionary universe. 2 it doesn't appear to me that the universe looks designed , in the past I thought that the dna molicule looked designed, but then I thought how could it be designed because there wouldn't have been anything to contrast that design to in other words it would seem that nature invents and observers improve opon . An example houses look designed but wouldn't you agree that they are just improvements on caves . Caves have walls a ceiling and an opening into.Any way like to here your thoughts on those examples I gave you. also as a bonus I may be able to prove something can come from nothing, stay tuned
Sye Ten Bruggencate and others like him simply need to study how the bible came into existence and when it came into existence. Along with this will be the many books left out and why those that were allowed were allowed. It can then be easily seen that this bible is so far removed form Jesus and god that it is not even funny. When you see the 66 books independently you can also understand why the bible contradicts itself. Bruggencate is like so many others in so much that he believed before he studied and people like this will believe the book and believe it proves itself and god. Real life does not work that way.
To the argument, "Everyone knows that God actually exists, therefore God actually must exist," I would point out Matthew 7:13-14. Here is the New International Version:
Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
In other words, do not form your beliefs based on popularity. Think for yourself.
Also, as johnprytz points out, the premise "Everyone knows that God actually exists" is false. There are about seven billion people on this planet, and nearly that many definitions of "God." If god is love (1 John 4), then yes, I would say that love exits. I can also agree that the CONCEPT of gods exists, but not the reality of gods. At the very idea of a real immortal person sitting on a great white throne in the sky, stroking his long, white beard, micromanaging the universe, and condemning dead people to Hell, I can only laugh out loud at such absurdity. I KNOW that Bruggencate's god does NOT exist, so I disprove that premise. Without me, "eveyone" is not everyone.
I'm familiar with Bruggencate and his silly ideas. Basically his argument is "You know god exists, you simply choose to deny it." He uses the bible to prove the existence of god in the same way I would use Mother Goose if I were trying to prove the existence of Humpty-Dumpty. He references a work of fiction to prove the existence of a fictional character.
He also has a smugness that I find comical given the stupidity of his arguments.
I've seen quite a few debates between believers, and non-believers. A good part of them were civil, which I like, I like good conversation as well.
But I have to say that Sye Ten Bruggencate is the biggest tool I've ever seen. He is a broken record of circular reasoning.
I've seen many interviews of those who had debated him, and they all say the same thing, "never again".
I don't blame them.