Comments on: Christopher Hitchens is right: There is no god

By: Mike Puckett

Mike Puckett — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:26:18 +0000

Faith in Christ is just that – faith. We see now as if through a cloudy glass, but one day all will be made clear. If there were total proof, not only would man still not believe, but faith would be not be required. Actually, if we want to get into the realm of disproving hypotheses, there is more evidence scientifically to the existence of God than there is to His non-existence.

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:01:23 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by martyduren: New post, Christopher Hitchens is right: There is no god – http://ow.ly/Pigx...

By: Beth

Beth — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:14:51 +0000

Actually, this article was a discussion of Marty’s belief, not an attempt to prove the existence of God. When a believer discusses God, of course he or she is assuming God’s existence. If this were an attempt to prove the existence of God, you’d have a point.

By: Matt Conway

Matt Conway — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:59:34 +0000

As I thought, you start by assuming what you intend to prove. Merry Christmas.

By: Marty Duren

Marty Duren — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:34:27 +0000

Matt-
Thanks for your comment.

My point is that if there is a true God who is disbelieved in the same way one disbelieves false gods, then there is a problem. It’s as if, in my analogy, one disbelieves in gravity and spontaneous generation as if both are scientifically tenable.

For the purpose of this article, the existence of a true God is assumed.

By: Joe Wilson

Joe Wilson — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:31:12 +0000

Well, I can’t add anything to the well said words of Marty Duren commenting on a subject in his special arena of defending and proclaiming the gospel, so I’ll just say AMEN!

By: Marty Duren

Marty Duren — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:30:32 +0000

Dan-
Thanks for stopping by and for your comment.

Either I did not do a good enough job of explaining myself or you have equated two things that I did not. Hitchens’ use of “god” (lower case) is all inclusive of any perceived deity; mine is not. I distinguish between the true “God” and all other “gods” which are false. My attempt was to use Hitchens use of the language in opposition to how the Bible itself utilizes the language: false “gods” vs true “God”

By: Matt Conway

Matt Conway — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:10:21 +0000

Your description of the “major glitch” in Hitchens’s argument makes no sense. How is it that taking the argument to your God is any different than taking it to any of the other dieties, aside from the fact that the God of the Bible is one you happen to care about? This fact, while precious to you, doesn’t qualifiy as a glitch.

thank you.

By: Dan Linehan

Dan Linehan — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:06:21 +0000

There is no god.

I believe only in the God of the Bible.

–
Does not compute.

If there is no god, that would include the God of the Bible.

By: Jason Barr

Jason Barr — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:35:03 +0000

Well said, Marty. I spent about 5 hours with an old college friend trying to explain why I am a believer. He is a very logical person and wanted a logical answer. I basically ended at you don’t believe until you believe…

Interestingly, there will be no atheists in hell. EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Think about that – eventually even Richard Dawkins will believe. I just pray he makes that confession before it’s too late. I have to keep reminding myself that these guys aren’t the enemy. The great deceiver is the enemy and the souls of those who openly speak against the God I love are precious to Him. Sometimes, that’s very difficult to wrap my head around.