Dr. Stephen Law, a well-known philosopher and Atheist, once explained that when an Atheist states they do not believe in God, what they are really saying is that they cannot conceive that such a thing could possibly exist (Darth Dawkins vs. Dr. Stephen Law). Dr. law gives the example of someone stating that there is a round square in the Brazilian Jungle – when he says that there is no such thing, what he means is that it is impossible to even conceive of such a thing as possibly existing.
When discussing the existence of God he, for example, proposes that if God is Good that there is an “evidential problem of Evil”. In this particular interview, Darth jumps the shark early by stating “I am asking you a legitimate question” – it is of course not a legitimate question, as Dr. Law explained previous and post to his statement. More on that in a moment. So the value of that interview ends here. However, Dr. Stephen Law has given us a fascinating look into the mind of an Atheist.
The evidential problem of Evil is a case of “atheist disease”. Atheist disease is not intentional. It is a case of denying the existence of God within the question that asks if there is a God or not. It is usually phrased as some sort of paradox (such as the Epicurean paradox, which creates it's own paradox by pre-defining God as a being bound by time). In this case, by bringing out the E.P.E. the Atheist is stating that “God is not God because *I* have the ability to create evil” – I.E. if God was Good, then by definition he must prevent me from having the ability to create evil. This is a faulty line of reasoning, and therefore we come to the Darth Problem, the Illegitimate Question
The problem with Darth's approach is simply that he does not really care about or even really understand what the Atheist objection to God is. It is primarily one that does not understand the idea or function of God. Psalm 147 “..they know not my laws.” This speaks both to Dr. Law and to Darth. Thus, the Atheist does not have the tradition – they are “good people” (or can be) but they do not “have the issue”. Thus, a legitimate question was asked and the opportunity for education on both sides was missed.
In general it is our position that there is no empirical evidence for a God.
Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).
After Immanuel Kant, in philosophy, it is common to call knowledge gained by means of empirical evidence a posteriori knowledge (in contrast to a priori knowledge).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
However, there is non-empirical evidence for a God.
One, empirical evidence is not always the strongest or most reliable form of evidence. Here are a few thoughts on this problem;
This is in fact an argument based on religious logic versus a scientific or philosophically logical argument.
The sole difference is that we presuppose that the hebrew scriptures are true. However, strictly speaking we do not need to assume the Hebrew scriptures are true for the Kuzari Argument.
In a nutshell the kuzari argument is that there is an unbroken stream of tradition and transmission of knowledge orally and in written form from Mt. Sinai until today. This argument is outlined here:
Essentially, if we cannot show that God exists via the logic expressed in the bible that Israel would be used by God to spread his glory throughout the earth, ex. the Kuzari argument – then there are precious few other ways in which we may build a logical case for God. There is however, perhaps one other way:
The story of Abraham is fascinating in that according to Midrash *(which is also alluded to in the scriptures themselves, which adds weight to the story) that Abraham grew up in an idolatrous culture and yet somehow was able to discern God's existance – and to come to a belief in a completely monotheistic God – entirely out of an observation of the world around him and of an application of pure logic. By pure logic we of course do not mean empeiría – but rather a more primitive direct-conclusion logic, perhaps a form of self-evidence that does not require a detailed study of historical philosophy (i.e. the facilities assumed by the average man).
The Abrahamic argument is, interestingly enough, not mentioned in the Bible. The story begins alternately in Genesis 11:32 or Genesis 12:
The question then remains, why did God speak to Abraham? According to Jewish lore, it was in fact Abraham who chose to follow God via passing a number of tests. Yet this does not explain why God chose to speak to Abraham.
To try and make sense of this we can note this is not a new question and the answer has been passed down for millenia even before Christianity came on the scene; thus we consider the Jewish answer authoritative (based on the simple principle – it's their book)
Terah, the ninth in descent from Noah, was the father of three sons: Abram, Nahor, and Haran. The entire family, including grandchildren, lived in Ur of the Chaldees. According to a midrash, Abram worked in Terah's idol shop in his youth. Haran was the father of Lot, and thus Lot was Abram's nephew. Haran died in his native city, Ur of the Chaldees. However, this phrase “ur of the chaldees” is a reference to the furnace from which Abram escaped (but in which Haran died).
At the core of this story stands what appears to be a derasha on the name of Abraham’s city, Ur of the Chaldeans (אור כשדים), which was creatively interpreted by some ancient exegetes to mean literally אור, fire or flames. Thus, Gen. 15:7 was understood as saying, “I am the Lord who rescued you from the midst of the fire of the Chaldeans.”
The above is taken from an interesting but vaguely heretical discussion of this midrash found at Why the Midrash Has Abraham Thrown into Nimrod's Furnace (I'll try to find a better discussion of this later).
Continuing … Abram married Sarah (Sarai), who was barren. Terah, with Abram, Sarai, and Lot, then departed for Canaan, but settled in a place named Haran, (yes, this is somewhat confusing – haran the city not haran the person who died in Ur – but Haran –) where Terah died at the age of 205.[Genesis 11:27–32]
The core of this story is, as the general direction of Idolatry had proceeded from seeking God to stopping at the (powers) before his face (ex. Genesis 4:26 “At that time people began to call on the name of the Lord.”) such as Astrology – Abraham began to look past the idols – to realize they were made merely of wood and stone, were not divine, and did not have any divine association at all. This is shown by Abraham's ”(This god) did it” when asked by his father who had destroyed all the idols. The point of the story is that Abraham realized that these created objects could not possibly have been God, because they were created – and this is a reference to the “first cause” argument.
Surely Abraham realized in a manner of speaking, the first cause argument – No created object could be god, and thus nothing in all creation could be God. Also, by way of this logic, a group of “gods” could not be “God” because several beings on par with each other suggest that none of them created the others; and therefore, as a set, they must have been created by a single God. This is almost surely the arguemnt for monotheism.
Isaiah 40 poses the question; “6 Lift up your eyes on high and see: who created these?” and yet, this question comes relatively late such that we wouldn't want to go by this when looking for an authoritative answer. Surely Abraham himself used argument and reason to discuss the existance of God with people who visited him (ex. in Mamre).
From the above we can get the general idea that based on the complexity of nature and the first cause argument that it is reasonable that there is a God. Thus, we may follow a similar if not exact path of logic as Abraham would have, to determie and state with reasonable grounds and reasonable certainty that there is a God.
In contrast to Abraham's initial argument would be the revelation of God's presence to Abraham, and eventually to Israel (This would have also been present in the line of Shem, i.e. Melchizedek).
God brought Israel into a new nation for his express purpose; Exodus 19:6 “And you shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.”
Who shall say there is a God, then?
Micah 4:2 seems to agree: “…and many nations shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”
However, Isaiah 49:6 provides a strong statement here:
The Lord says:
“It is too light a thing that you should be my servant
to raise up the tribes of Jacob
and to bring back the preserved of Israel;
I will make you as a light for the nations,
that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”
--Isaiah 49:6 (ESV)
x