ARGUMEN PENUTUP KETIADAAN TUHAN

[xenocross]

1. The nature of the evidence
How should the difference of opinion between the theist and the atheist be rationally
resolved? What Dr. Stein has written indicates that he, like many atheists, has not reflected
adequately on this question. He writes, and I quote, "The question of the existence of God is
a factual question, and should be answered in the same way as any other factual questions."

The assumption that all existence claims are questions about matters of fact, the
assumption that all of these are answered in the very same way is not only over simplified
and misleading, it is simply mistaken. The existence, factuality or reality of different kinds of
things is not established or disconfirmed in the same way in every case.
We might ask , "Is there a box of crackers in the pantry?" And we know how we would
go about answering that question. But that is a far, far cry from the way we go about
answering questions determining the reality of say, barometric pressure, quasars, gravitational
attraction, elasticity, radio activity, natural laws, names, grammar, numbers, the university
itself that you're now at, past events, categories, future contingencies, laws of thought,
political obligations, individual identity over time, causation, memories, dreams, or even love
or beauty. In such cases, one does not do anything like walk to the pantry and look inside for
the crackers. There are thousands of existence or factual questions, and they are not at all
answered in the same way in each case.
Just think of the differences in argumentation and the types of evidences used by
biologists, grammarians, physicists, mathematicians, lawyers, magicians, mechanics,
merchants, and artists. It should be obvious from this that the types of evidence one looks
for in existence or factual claims will be determined by the field of discussion and especially
by the metaphysical nature of the entity mentioned in the claim under question.
Dr. Stein's remark that the question of the existence of God is answered in the same way
as any other factual question, mistakenly reduces the theistic question to the same level as the
box of crackers in the pantry, which we will hereafter call the crackers in the pantry fallacy.

2. The presuppositional conflict of world views
Dr. Stein has written about the nature of evidence in the theistic debate, and what he has
said points to a second philosophical error of significant proportions. In passing, we would
note how unclear he is, by the way, in speaking of the evidence which must be used,
describing it variously as logic, facts, or reason. Each of these terms is susceptible to a whole
host of differing senses, not only in philosophy, but especially in ordinary usage, depending
on who is using the terms.
I take it he wishes to judge hypotheses in the common sense - by tests of logical
coherence and empirical observation. The problem arises when Dr. Stein elsewhere insists
that every claim that someone makes must be treated as a hypothesis which must be tested
by such evidence before accepting it. "There is to be nothing," he says, "which smacks of
begging the question or circular reasoning."
This, I think, is oversimplified thinking and again misleading, what we might call the
Pretended Neutrality fallacy. One can see this by considering the following quotation from Dr.
Stein: "The use of logic or reason is the only valid way to examine the truth or falsity of any
statement which claims to be factual."
One must eventually ask Dr. Stein, then, how he proves this statement itself. That is,
how does he prove that logic or reason is the only way to prove factual statements?

He is now on the horns of a real epistemological dilemma. If he says that the statement
is true by logic or reason, then he is engaging in circular reasoning; and he's begging the
question which he [supposedly] forbids. If he says that the statement is proven in some other
fashion, then he refutes the statement itself, that logic or reason is the only way to prove
things.
Now my point is not to fault Dr. Stein's commitment to logic or reason, but to observe
that it actually has the nature of a pre commitment or a presupposition. It is not something
that he has proven by empirical experience or logic, but it is rather that by which he
proceeds to prove everything else. He is not presuppositionally neutral in his approach to
factual questions and disputes. He does not avoid begging crucial questions, rather than
proving them in what we might call the garden variety, ordinary way.
Now this tendency to beg crucial questions is openly exposed by Dr. Stein when the
issue becomes the existence of God; because he demands that the theist present him with
the evidence for the existence of God. Well, theists like myself would gladly and readily do
so. There is the evidence of the created order itself testifying to the wisdom. power, plan,
and glory of God. One should not miss the testimony of the solar system, the persuasion of
the sea, the amazing intricacies of the human body.
There's the evidence of history: God's deliverance of His people, the miracles on
Passover night and [at] the Red Sea, the visions in Isaiah, the Shekinah Glory that filled the
Temple, the Virgin Birth of , His mighty miracles, His resurrection from the dead.
There's the evidence of Special Revelation, the wonder of the Bible as God's Word,
unsurpassed in its coherence over time, in its historical accuracy and its life-renewing power.
In short, there is no shortage of empirical indicators or evidences of God's existence -
from the thousand stars of the heavens to the 500 witnesses of Christ's resurrection. But, Dr.
Stein precludes the very possibility of any of this empirical evidence counting as proof for God's existence. He
writes, " Supernatural explanations are not allowed in science. The theist is hard put to
document his claims for the existence of the supernatural if he is in effect forbidden from
evoking the supernatural as a part of his explanation. Of course, this is entirely fair; as it
would be begging the question to use what has to be proved as a part of the explanation."

[xenocross]

In advance, you see, Dr. Stein is committed to disallowing any theistic interpretation of
nature, history or experience. What he seems to overlook is that this is just as much begging
the question on his own part as it is on the part of the theist. who appeal to such evidence.
He has not at all proven by empirical observation and logic his pre commitment to
Naturalism. He has assumed it in advance, accepting and rejecting all further factual claims in
terms of that controlling and unproved assumption.
Now the theist does the very same thing, don't get me wrong. When certain empirical
evidences are put forth as likely disproving the existence of God, the theist regiments his
commitments in terms of his presuppositions, as well. Just as the Naturalist would insist that
Christ could not have risen from the dead, or that there is a natural explanation yet to be
found of how he did rise from the dead, so the supernaturalist will insist that the alleged
discrepancies in the Bible have an explanation - some yet to be found, perhaps - and that the

evil of this world has a sufficient reason behind it, known at least to God. They both have
their governing presuppositions by which the facts of experience are interpreted, even as all
philosophical systems, all world views do.
At the most fundamental level of everyone's thinking and beliefs there are primary
convictions about reality, man, the world, knowledge, truth, behavior, and such things.
Convictions about which all other experience is organized, interpreted, and applied. Dr. Stein
has such presuppositions, so do I, and so do all of you. And it is these presuppositions
which determine what we accept by ordinary reasoning and evidence, for they are assumed
in all of our reasoning - even about reasoning itself.
3. The Transcendental Proof of God's Existence
How should the difference of opinion between the atheist and the theist be rationally
resolved? That was my opening question. We've seen two of Dr. Stein's errors regarding it:
the crackers in the pantry fallacy and the pretended neutrality fallacy. In the process of
discussing them we've observed that belief in the existence of God is not tested in any
ordinary way like other factual claims. And the reason for that is metaphysically because of
the non-natural character of God, and epistemologically, because of the presuppositional
character of commitment for or against His existence.
Arguments over conflicting presuppositions between world views, therefore, must be
resolved somewhat differently, and yet still rationally, from conflicts over factual existence
claims within a world view or system of thought.
When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest
we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The
transcendental proof for God's existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove
anything. The atheist world view is irrational and cannot consistently provide the
preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist world view
cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to
understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist world view cannot
account for our debate tonight.

[xenocross]

II. OPENING STATEMENT—STEIN
A. Introductory Remarks
I will grant Dr. Bahnsen his expertise on A Conditional Resolution of the Apparent
Paradox of Self-Deception, which was his dissertation. I don't know how much more
relevant that is to our discussion tonight than mine is, probably not any more. But I would
also like to thank Dr. Bahnsen for showing us that he really doesn't understand too much
about atheism. I will try to straighten him out.
This is an important question we're discussing. Perhaps it is the most important question
in the field of religion, because if God doesn't exist, then the Bible is not the word of God,

 can't be the Messiah, and Christianity can't be true, as well as any other religion. So,
we're dealing with an important issue here.
Now, Dr. Bahnsen repeated for me that the existence of God is a factual question. I
don't think he would dispute that. I think he misinterpreted what I said, when I said we
resolve factual questions in the same way. I didn't mean exactly in the same way; I meant
with the use of reason, logic, and evidence. And that is what I am holding.
B. Definitions
1. Atheism
Now, first of all, let me make clear what atheism is and is not. I think this has been a
very commonly misunderstood subject. Atheists do not say that they can prove there is no
God. Also, an atheist is not someone who denies there is a God. Rather, an atheist says that
he has examined the proofs that are offered by the theists, and finds them inadequate.
Now, if I were to say that this gentleman sitting in the front steps could fly by flapping
his arms, I'd be making a kind of unusual statement. And it would be up to me or him to
demonstrate that he can fly. If he can't demonstrate it, then we don't believe that he can fly.
Now, if he doesn't demonstrate it right now, it doesn't mean that he can't fly; it just means
that he can't fly right now. So, we do not deny that he can fly because he can't demonstrate it
right now; but you see, he has not proven his case. And therefore, we do not believe that he
can fly until he proves so.
And this is what the atheist says about the existence of God: He says the case is
unproved not disproved. So, an atheist is really someone who is without a belief in God, or
he does not believe in a God. It is not someone who denies the existence of God, or who
says that one does not exist, or that he can prove that one does not exist.
2. God
Well, I think would like to define a god, as well . I'm not so sure I like his definition. I'm
not going to stick to just the Christian God, I'm going to stick to all kinds of gods. I'm going
to use the definition which Father Coppleston and Bertrand Russell both agreed on in their
debate. Now this is a definition that both sides agreed to, so I think it must be an adequate
one, if not a great one. And this is the definition: "A supreme personal being, distinct from
the world, and creator of the world."
Now before asking for proof of God's existence we need a satisfactory definition, and I
think I've given one which I will find at least satisfactory. If Dr. Bahnsen doesn't agree, we
can hear from him. Nothing can qualify as evidence of the existence of a god unless we have
some idea of what we're searching for. That's why we need the definition.
3. The Burden of Proof
Throughout history there are eleven major kinds of evidence or proof have been offered
for God's existence. In my campus visits all kinds of other things have been offered as
proof, but they all can fit under these eleven categories with some juggling. Now if these

eleven proofs do not work out logically, or lead to logical self-contradictions, then we can
only say that God's existence is not proven; it is unproved, not disproved, as I mentioned
before.
Now if I assert that this gentleman can fly by flapping his arms, as I said, the burden of
proof is on him. Suppose I make a more complicated statement. Suppose I say that my dog
can talk in complete sentences. Well, again, I'm making a kind of unusual statement, and it's
up to me to offer the evidence. So. I'd better be prepared to do that, or I'd better be
prepared to have people not believe what I say.
I'd like a demonstration either of this gentleman flying or of my dog talking, if I were the
person being asked to make a decision before I admitted that such things were possible or
existed. How easy would it be to show that this gentleman cannot fly or that my dog cannot
talk in complete sentences? As I mentioned before, you get into a real problem trying to
show that something cannot happen or that something does not exist.
For example, if I wanted to prove that unicorns do not exist, I could examine this room
and conclude that there are no unicorns in this room, which is a small area. To prove the
general nonexistence of something like unicorns, you would have to search the entire
universe simultaneously. And then you could only say that no unicorns existed at the
moment we searched the universe. But maybe they were there five minutes before, or if
maybe we only searched the whole earth, they were on another planet at the time. There are
all kinds of possibilities. So, you cannot prove that something does not exist. That's why, as I
mentioned before, the definition of an atheist is not someone who thinks he has proven that
God does not exist, because he cannot.

[xenocross]

C. The Theistic Proofs
I want to quickly go over some of the eleven major proofs. They have been 900 years in
the formulation, and during this 900 years, this is what people have basically come up with.
1. The First Cause (Cosmological) Argument
Everything must have a cause, therefore the universe must have a cause, and that cause
was God. God was the first or uncaused cause.
Response: This leads to a real logical bind for the theist, because, if everything must
have a cause, then God must have a cause. If God had a cause, he cannot be the first or
uncaused cause. If God did not have a cause, then not everything must have a cause. If not
everything needs a cause, then perhaps the universe doesn't need a cause. Thus, there is a
logical bind and the proof fails.

2. The Design (Teleological) Argument
The universe is wonderful and exhibits evidence of design and order. These things must
have had a designer that was even more wonderful, and that designer was God.
Response: Surely if the world is wonderfully designed, and God, the designer, is
more wonderfully designed, then God must have a designer even more wonderful than He
is. If God didn't need a designer, than neither should the relatively less wonderful thing such
as the universe have needed one. Again, there is a logical self-contradiction.

3. The Argument from Life
Life cannot originate from the random movement of atoms, and yet life exists. Therefore
the existence of a God was necessary to create life.
Response: Basically, life didn't originate from the random movement of atoms, and
no scientists would say so. Because there are limits of a chemical composition and physics of
atoms, and they do not move in any possible way, chemicals do not combine in any possible
way. That's why when you see these one billion to one kind of odds that people have set for
life originating. They're all wet. They haven't considered the possibility that not every
reaction can occur. So, it's possible to explain the origins of life without a god and using the
principle of parsimony or Occam's Razor, I think we are left with the simpler explanation.
[which is] the one without the God. I'll go into more detail on that later.

4. The Argument from Revealed Theology
The Bible says that God exists, and the Bible is the inspired word of God, therefore
what it says must be true. Therefore God exists.
Response: Well this is obviously a circular argument. It begs the question. We are
trying to show whether God exists; therefore, calling the Bible the word of God is not
permitted, because it assumes the existence of the very thing we are trying to prove. So, if
the Bible is not the Word of God, then we cannot give any real weight to the fact that it
mentions that God exists. Thus, it does not become a proof. In fact, to prove God from the
Bible is standing things on its head. First you must prove God, then you may say whether
God dictated it or inspired it. But you can't really use the Bible as Dr. Bahnsen seems to
want to do as evidence for existence of God, per se.

5. The Argument from Miracles
The existence of miracles requires the presence of a supernatural force, or a God.
Miracles do occur, and therefore there is a supernatural force or God.
Response: Again, this is begging the question; it requires that you must believe in a
God first, beforehand. Then you say there are such things as miracles, which are acting of a
God who creates violations of his own laws. So, it is not evidence, per se, it can serve as
supplementary evidence, once you have good evidence in another kind of way for the
existence of a God - you can use miracles as a additional argument, but in and of itself it
doesn't show the existence of a God, because it assumes that which needs to be proven.
A quote from Thomas Paine about miracles: "When you see an account is given about
such a miracle, by a person who says he saw it, it raises a question in the mind that is very
easily decided. Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man
could tell a lie? We have never seen in our time Nature go out of her course, but we have
good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in this same time. It is therefore at
least millions to one that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie" I think those are good odds.

6. The Ontological Argument
God is, by definition, perfect. A necessary quality of any perfect object is that it exists. If
it did not exist it would not be perfect. If perfection requires existence, then God exists.
Response: There is a problem with the word exists. In order for something to be
perfect, it must first exist. If something didn't exist, the word perfect wouldn't mean anything.
First you must have existence, then possibly you may have perfection. So, this again is going
backwards; you must first have an existing God, and then you can decide whether He's
perfect, if perfection is a quality of a God, then He may be perfect, but He first must exist.

7. The Moral Argument
All people have moral values. The existence of these values cannot be explained unless
they were implanted in people by a God. Therefore, God exists.
An atheist's problem: There are simpler ways to explain the origin of moral values
without requiring the existence of a God to implant them into people. Besides, if moral
values did come from a God, then all people should have the same moral values. They don't.
People's moral values are a result of an accommodation they have made with their particular
environment and have taught to their children as a survival mechanism.

8. The Wish Argument
Without the existence of a God people wouldn't have any reason to live or be good,
therefore there has to be a God. Most people believe in a God, therefore there is a God.
Response: This really isn't a proof, it is just a wish. It's like saying that it would be nice
to have a God (which it would), but that doesn't have anything to do with whether there is
one or not.

9. The Argument from Faith
The existence of God cannot be proven by the use of reason, but only by the use of
faith. The use of faith shows that there is a God, therefore God exists.
Response: Reason is a proven way to obtain factual information about the universe.
Faith has not been shown to produce true information about the universe because faith is
believing something is so because you want it to be so, without adequate evidence.
Therefore, faith cannot be used to prove the existence of anything.
In addition, there is the fact that faith often gives you the opposite answer to what is
given by reason to the same problem. This also shows that faith does not provide valid
answers.

10. The Argument from Religious Experience
Many people have claimed to have a personal experience or encounter with God,
therefore God must exist.

Response: This is a difficult one to handle, because, first of all, I've never had such
an experience, but I'm sure that people have absolutely honestly thought they've had such
experiences. But, the feeling of having met God cannot be confused with the fact of having
met God. There is a semantic confusion; and also, we cannot use our own feelings as if they
were valid ways to obtain information about the world. They are feelings that we have inside
of us, but we cannot demonstrate them to another person. They cannot be used as an
evidence. If everyone had that same experience; like if we all looked around the room and
we all agreed that there is a clock over there, then we might say that the vision of a clock is a
consensual one, if everyone agreed on it. Other than that, if you saw a clock and no one else
did, or if only two or three people did in the room, then you have a bit of a problem.

11. Pascal's Wager
We have no way of knowing if a God exists or not, and we have no way of finding out,
but you have nothing to lose by believing in a God, but on the other hand, you do have a lot
to lose by not believing in a God, and it turns out later on that there is one after we're dead,
Response: This is only true if 1) You are right about a God, and 2) you have picked
the right religion, because you might wind up on the Judgment Day and be right about a
God, but He says, "What religion were you?" and you say, "I was a believer in Islam." And
He says, "Sorry, Catholicism is the right religion. Down you go." So, in addition, you might
have a God Who punishes people who have lived virtuous lives, say an atheist who has lived
a virtuous life, did wonderful deeds in the world, but just does not believe in a God, if the
God punishes him, you have an irrational God who is just as likely to punish the believer as
the unbeliever.

[Johsun]

Setiap jantung manusia terdapat ukiran yang tertulis huruf lafaz Allah,
disaat apollo mengudara dan melhat bumi lewat kamera, tampak nama lafaz Allah diatas samudera,
pohon berdiri berjajar menuliskan arti tiada Tuhan selain Allah,
tumbuh sebuah pohon terlihat sedang rukuk menghadap kiblat,

itu merupakan tanda- tanda keberadaan Allah, dan tanda- tanda kekuasaan Allah.

Jika Tuhan tidak ada, maka kejadian keajaiban ini juga tak akan ada.

Oleh karena, Allah ada, maka kejadian itu merupakan tanda-tanda kekuasaan-Nya.

[hatRed]

trik kamera om johsun

[Reenzia]

yaaaaaaaaaaah ternyata sotosop 

[ryu]

Kalo mau di bulan ada Buddhanya lho ama aye, buat bukti kebesaran aye

[Johsun]

Coba anda bertanya pada kang foxroxman??atau bertanya kpd dokter bedah

[Johsun]

Di sekitar daerah jantung, trdpt urat, atau sesuatu yang menuliskan uk

[Johsun]

Ukiran nama Allah.
Cobalah anda bertanya kpda mereka niscaya mereka berkata ya hal ini memang terbukti bhwa ada lafaz Allah disitu.

Ini adalah tanda-tanda kekuasaan Allah di dalam segala ciptaan-Nya.

Karena itu, kita jangan menentang-Nya, karena bisa copot atau bisa mati mendadak.

[Jerry]

ngga menentang-Nya juga ntar copot atau mati mendadak juga kalo dah 'waktu'nya

oke deh pertama2.. biar bro Johsun puas.. kita asumsikan cerita Johsun di atas bener..
Nah skrg buktinya. mana buktinyaaa?? omdo??

[Nevada]

Ya ampun, Johsun...

Itu kok dijadikan pegangan spiritual Anda?
Kalau mau bukti begono juga dalam "Buddhisme" ada... 

Wajah manusia itu (alis, mata, hidung dan mulut) membentuk huruf ku = pahit (aksara Mandarin).
Ini bukti wejangan Sang Buddha bahwa dunia ini dukkha adalah nyata... 

[Johsun]

Salam,
 [at] xuvie, buktinya dapat search di google, tentang mukjizat lafaz Allah. . .
Tengkiu.
 [at] bro upasaka
hurufnya tak mirip amat.

[Jerry]

wew.. nyuruh search.. emoh.. cape deh.. #-S

haha.. itu kan opa saka memakai metode 'Maksa' sperti johsun.. ck ck ck..
u see what u wanna see. ok?

case closed! tok tok tok