[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Dawkins Admits He Cannot Prove God Does Not Exist
Source: GFP.com
URL Source: http://godfatherpolitics.com/4011/d ... nnot-prove-god-does-not-exist/
Published: Mar 5, 2012
Author: Giacomo
Post Date: 2012-03-05 13:55:53 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 41499
Comments: 108

Dawkins Admits He Cannot Prove God Does Not Exist

March 5, 2012 by Giacomo

For centuries, people have claimed to be atheists because no one could prove to them that God exists. One of the most ardent members of that group has been British author Richard Dawkins. I’ve read and listened to Dawkins challenge believers to prove to him that God exists and that if they could he might believe in God.

But in reality, the opposite is true. The onus is on people like Dawkins to prove there is no God and this is something he has finally realized he cannot do. With the realization that he cannot prove God does not exist, Dawkins shocked many throughout the world with his announcement that he is not an atheist after all, but rather he would classify himself as an agnostic.

The definition of an agnostic is someone who believes that the existence of God is unknown and that human knowledge is limited to physical evidence plus things that can be experienced and this is where Dawkins find himself.

However, many Christians, like evangelist and author Ray Comfort, challenge Dawkins statement about being an agnostic and that it has everything to do with evidence and proving that God does not exist. Rather, Comfort says that people like Dawkins are making a decision on the moral choice to deny the existence of God. If they acknowledged God in any form, they would have to realize that they would have a moral obligation to be responsible to Him.

Comfort goes even further and describes Dawkins as not only being ignorant but of being an ignoramus. He explains,

“Richard Dawkins is ignorant when it comes to the existence of God. However, it’s a willful ignorance. He has in the past stated that he believes that nothing created everything, which is a scientific impossibility. It’s not only impossible, it’s crazy to believe that. That’s why the Bible uses the word ‘fool’ to describe someone who says that God doesn’t exist.

“Professing atheists will often slip into pleading ignorance, but that plea doesn’t solve their case, because they just move from being a ‘fool’ to being an ‘ignoramus.’

“The word ‘ignoramus’ is a legal term derived from a Latin word meaning ‘we do not know. An ignoramus is like a man who looks at a building and says that he ‘doesn’t know’ if a builder exists. Obviously, the building is proof that there was a builder, because buildings don’t build themselves.

“The reason why anyone would be that ignorant is clear. It’s not a case of a lack of evidence. The problem with Professor Dawkins isn’t intellectual, but moral. He doesn’t want to admit that God exists, because if he does, he’s admitting that he’s morally responsible to Him.”

I found the definition of agnostic interesting because it is not only based on physical evidence, but also relies on things that can be experienced. I don’t know about you, but I’ve experienced the presence of God numerous times in my life. I’ve witnessed things that defy all natural explanation and can only be explained by a God who watches over and gets involved in our lives. To be honest, I didn’t pick my wife some 42 years ago, but rather I can see where God caused a number of things to happen, that shouldn’t have happened, that led to us getting together. (Knowing that God picked her out for me also tells me that I have to do whatever it takes to make sure nothing happens to destroy our marriage.)

Deep inside all of us we experience the presence of God as we were made in His image with an ingrained knowledge of him from the very beginning. One of my favorite examples of this was Helen Keller, who at the young age of 19 months developed a fever that left her blind and deaf. She was so young at the time that she had little memory of vision or hearing. She grew up in a black and soundless world without any communication with others, other than touch until Ann Sullivan found a way to communicate to her.

In one of her letters, Helen told Bishop Brooks that she had always known about God, even before she had any words. Before she could call God anything, she knew God was there. She didn’t know what it was. God had no name for her — nothing had a name for her. She had no concept of a name. But in her darkness and isolation, she knew she was not alone. Someone was with her. She felt God’s love. And when she received the gift of language and heard about God, she said she already knew.

If Richard Dawkins is correct, Helen Keller should never have been able to experience the presence of God, but she did because the knowledge of God is part of who we all are. Therefore, Ray Comfort is absolutely correct when he says that Dawkins and others are making a moral decision to deny the existence of God since they know that God exists in them and cannot prove to others that He doesn’t

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 87.

#2. To: CZ82 (#0)

Likewise, it cannot be proven that Thor, the God of Thunder does not exist.

calcon  posted on  2012-03-05   15:09:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: calcon (#2)

Likewise, it cannot be proven that Thor, the God of Thunder does not exist.

That is what i was going to say. You can't prove a negative..

NewsJunky  posted on  2012-03-05   15:20:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: NewsJunky (#3)

“The word ‘ignoramus’ is a legal term derived from a Latin word meaning ‘we do not know. An ignoramus is like a man who looks at a building and says that he ‘doesn’t know’ if a builder exists. Obviously, the building is proof that there was a builder, because buildings don’t build themselves.

So who then did make that "watch?"

redleghunter  posted on  2012-03-05   17:59:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: redleghunter (#7)

So who then did make that "watch?"

Why must there be a creator?

NewsJunky  posted on  2012-03-05   19:11:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: NewsJunky (#15)

Why must there be a creator?

Because "things" exist.

redleghunter  posted on  2012-03-05   19:13:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: redleghunter (#16)

Because "things" exist.

What if they have always existed?

NewsJunky  posted on  2012-03-05   19:16:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: NewsJunky (#18)

Because "things" exist. What if they have always existed?

Do you have any evidence that they always existed?

redleghunter  posted on  2012-03-06   13:34:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: redleghunter (#29)

Do you have any evidence that they always existed?

Do you know it hasn't?

NewsJunky  posted on  2012-03-06   14:39:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: NewsJunky (#30)

Do you have any evidence that they always existed? Do you know it hasn't?

Your questions prompt me to ask if you believe something came from nothing? Also, is the universe ordered or chaotic?

redleghunter  posted on  2012-03-06   15:50:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: redleghunter (#35)

Also, is the universe ordered or chaotic?

It is governed by the laws of physics so in one sense it is ordered. That doesn't mean that there must be something to supernatural that makes it ordered.

NewsJunky  posted on  2012-03-06   16:43:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: NewsJunky (#39)

It is governed

Governed implies a Governor.

redleghunter  posted on  2012-03-06   16:56:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: redleghunter (#40)

Governed implies a Governor.

No not necessarily..

NewsJunky  posted on  2012-03-06   19:19:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: NewsJunky (#45)

Governed implies a Governor. No not necessarily..

Yes it does. You said we are governed by physical laws. If that is the case who is the lawgiver? To say we have no lawgiver to these laws of nature, that would be saying all has come about impersonally by chance. Even if you argue things have "always been there without beginning" it had to happen either by an unmoved mover or by chance.

redleghunter  posted on  2012-03-06   19:25:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: redleghunter (#46)

To say we have no lawgiver to these laws of nature, that would be saying all has come about impersonally by chance.

Exactly..

NewsJunky  posted on  2012-03-06   20:28:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: NewsJunky, redleghunter (#50)

To say we have no lawgiver to these laws of nature, that would be saying all has come about impersonally by chance.

Exactly..

You do realize that one of the overarching basic LAWS of Nature, the second LAW of thermodynamics, is ENTROPY right?

You do realize that all living being live in at least 4 dimensions do you not? Ergo TIME is a river in which we ALL swim.

You do understand the use of the basic rules of classical rigorous LOGIC don't you?

You do realize by the same LAWS that you CLAIM to believe in that what you CLAIM to believe in is absurd?

If I leave a pile of rust for an infinite time, at no time will that rust become a Chevy.

Explain exactly how an EYE is generated out of chaos by pure chance. Don't just try to say it's obvious upon inspection PROVE it. You cannot.

It comes down to this;

there is ORDER everywhere in the known perceived universe.

If you go infinitely small or infinitely large, there is order.

This order is scalable and consistent.

Thus, you CLAIM ORDER comes naturally, and spontaneously, from infinite CHAOS given infinite TIME.

This cannot be, from the rules/LAWS of nature that you CLAIM to believe in.

Given the LAWS of nature that you CLAIM to believe in, ORDER cannot just "fall out of" CHAOS.

How you handle THAT OBJECTIVE TRUTH is your problem.

So called LOGIC would suggest a potter where a pot is found, let alone in a kilned pottery.

But, "It just happened" won't EVEN wash.

Mad Dog  posted on  2012-03-06   20:54:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: Mad Dog (#53)

Thus, you CLAIM ORDER comes naturally, and spontaneously, from infinite CHAOS given infinite TIME.

This cannot be, from the rules/LAWS of nature that you CLAIM to believe in.

Given the LAWS of nature that you CLAIM to believe in, ORDER cannot just "fall out of" CHAOS.

The postmodern worldviews can all be found in a "bong."

redleghunter  posted on  2012-03-07   17:58:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: redleghunter, Mad Dog (#63)

http://2ndlaw.oxy.edu/evolution.html

There are millions of compounds that have less energy in them than the elements of which they are composed. That sentence is a quiet bombshell. It means that the second law energetically FAVORS — yes, predicts firmly — the spontaneous formation of complex, geometrically ordered molecules from utterly simple atoms of elements. Popular statements such as "the second law says that all systems fundamentally tend toward disorder and randomness" are wrong when they refer to chemistry, and chemistry precisely deals with the structure and behavior of all types of matter.

To summarize this important conclusion that is known by very few who are not chemists: Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a "spreading out" of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously.

Also, to repeat a caution: The foregoing only describes energetic relationships involving the second law. It does not mean that most complex substances can be readily synthesized just by mixing elements and treating them in some way. The second law has nothing to do with pathways or procedures of synthesis – only with energy and its tendency to spread out/disperse.

NewsJunky  posted on  2012-03-07   18:01:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: NewsJunky (#64)

Bullsh!t.

NEW compounds form for sure, LOWER more simple molecules, ie. oxidation products such as RUST result over time.

ENTROPY means that things FALL APART over time.

It means that EVERY PHYSICAL THING falls apart given enough TIME.

EVERYTHING.

BUT germaine to THIS conversation, Chevys don't fall out of RUST. EVER.

Dude this is BASIC physics.

Get a clue.

Mad Dog  posted on  2012-03-07   22:30:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: Mad Dog (#81)

Cite a physicist who agrees with you.

NewsJunky  posted on  2012-03-08   1:58:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: NewsJunky (#85)

Cite a physicist who agrees with you.

LOL! Your IGNORANCE is legion!

It's BASIC F'ing high school physics that ENTROPY means that ALL things breakdown over time.

For supposedly believing in the LAWS of physics you sure don't know squat about what ENTROPY even means.

What do you think "spreading out of energy" means genius?

This isn't even debatable.

ENTROPY means that ALL things breakdown/fall apart given enough TIME.

Mad Dog  posted on  2012-03-08   14:11:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 87.

#93. To: Mad Dog (#87)

LOL! Your IGNORANCE is legion!

I was asking you to cite a physicist who thinks that evolution is inconsistent with the laws of physics.

NewsJunky  posted on  2012-03-08 16:21:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 87.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com