If you have not yet read Rachel and I discuss the sun, read it first and then return to read this post.

It was evening, and as I sat watching the darkness spread across the land I chanced to think about how strange a thing it was to see the vast heavens and consider it came about quite by chance. When I said as much to Rachel, my imaginary friend, I regret she failed to see why this puzzled me, or even why I might think this at all.

Then, as if that wasn’t enough, I was confidently assured that “It’s because God created the heavens” – and with this and much other babbling I was instructed in the ways and habits of an entity named God that (being one God in three persons) created the heavens and the earth according to his will and by his word, such that all things were created through him. I must admit I’m not sure I’d ever heard such nonsense in my life.

I told Rachel that “Whilst the guy who invented this God theory you’re telling me about was obviously smart, yet it cannot be any more than an unsupported theory. There is no evidence for God. There’s no way we can know this supposed God exists!”

The indignant reply came almost as if she had been studying ways to defend the theory. Rather smugly, she asked me if I had ever pondered the immensity of the heavens, the glories of the sky, the depths of the sea and the heights of the mountains.

Having admitted as much, I asked the obvious question: “Why should my having pondered these things have anything to do with the theory of God?” This threw her off balance somewhat – for some reason she thought she’d made the case rather well. After some thought she replied with slow and measured tones to the effect that the heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork (Psalm 19:1). She said that these invisible attributes of God, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made (Romans 1:20).

Said I – “Nonsense. Your supposed evidence relies upon your presupposition that God does exist. If God doesn’t exist, then these things we see, however marvellous, are not from God! How can you expect me to accept evidence which is contingent upon something I deny?”

She brought up various other things as the night went on. Vain theories such as the supposed evidence of history, thermodynamics, miracles, incredible complexity in minute things, and perfect engineering even in massive, and the like. She even talked about some story of how God sent his Son to die for the sins of the world, and raised him again from the dead – something she claims was witnessed by over five hundred people (I Corinthians 15:3-6) and is recorded by in eye-witness testimonies (e.g. Matthew 28:6-10, Luke 24:5-17, John 20:15-18, Acts 2:22-24, …). I listened graciously, gently shaking my head and grimacing as one invalid argument after another was brought forward.

Eventually I told her the bottom line. “It comes down to this”, I said, “If I am to believe in the existence of God, then it must be from evidence that does not arise from or as a consequence of this supposed God. If you believe God exists only because of the revelation of God, then I’m afraid your arguments all fall flat, for if God does not exist then not a single one of your arguments is valid.”

To bring the point home I said in a persuasive and somewhat louder voice that “I will only be convinced of the existence of God if his existence is revealed to me by some other means than the revelation of God”

That did the trick. She shook her head gently, walked off, and kneeled in her weakness – clearly defeated.

How foolish and ignorant she is, believing in something based only on evidence of its own existence!

Romans 1:18-25

The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

385nonehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F385%2Frachel-and-i-discuss-godRachel+and+I+discuss+God2010-11-06+13%3A01%3A17vincevincevincehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F%3Fp%3D385

It was evening, and as I sat watching the darkness spread across the land I chanced to think about how strange a thing it was to see the light vanish all on its own. When I said as much to Rachel, my imaginary friend, I regret she failed to see why this puzzled me.

As if that wasn’t enough, I was confidently assured that “It’s because the sun’s gone down behind the horizon” – and with this and much other babbling I was instructed in the ways and habits of a rather peculiar solar entity that (being composed of a large burning ball) shines light on the earth, each side being illuminated in turn as the earth spins. I must admit I’m not sure I’d ever heard such nonsense in my life.

I told Rachel that “Whilst the guy who invented this sun theory you’re telling me about was obviously smart, yet it cannot be any more than an unsupported theory. There is no evidence for the sun. There’s no way we can know this supposed sun exists!”

The indignant reply came almost as if she had been studying ways to defend the theory. Rather smugly, she asked me if I had seen a large circle of bright light, rising behind one horizon in the morning, and setting behind the other in the evening – bringing with it light and warmth.

Having admitted as much, I asked the obvious question: “Why should my having seen this circular light have anything to do with the theory of the sun?” This threw her off balance somewhat – for some reason she thought she’d made the case rather well. After some thought she replied with slow and measured tones to the effect that this very circular ball of light is the sun, and so the fact that I have seen the light coming from it, felt the warmth of it, and witnessed its path through the heavens is evidence that it exists, just as she had said.

Said I – “Nonsense. Your supposed evidence relies upon your presupposition that the sun does exist. If the sun doesn’t exist, then the light from the sky was not from the sun! How can you expect me to accept evidence which is contingent upon something I deny?”

She brought up various other things as the night went on. Vain theories such as the supposed evidence of photosynthesis, gravitational studies, orbital calculations, optical measurements and the like. I listened graciously, gently shaking my head and grimacing as one invalid argument after another was brought forward.

Eventually I told her the bottom line. “It comes down to this”, I said, “If I am to believe in the existence of the sun, then it must be from evidence that does not arise from or as a consequence of the supposed sun. If you believe the sun exists only because of the revelation of the sun, then I’m afraid your arguments all fall flat, for if the sun does not exist then not a single one of your arguments is valid.”

To bring the point home I said in a persuasive and somewhat louder voice that “I will only be convinced of the existence of the sun if its existence is revealed to me by some other means than the revelation of the sun”

That did the trick. She rolled her eyes, shook her head, and walked off – clearly defeated and going to tell her physics professor that what he’d said about the sun was baseless and groundless.

How foolish and ignorant she is, believing in something based only on evidence of its own existence!

361nonehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F361%2Frachel-and-i-discuss-the-sunRachel+and+I+discuss+the+sun2010-11-05+06%3A05%3A31vincevincevincehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.vincevincevince.com%2F%3Fp%3D361