I was thinking about William Lane Craig and his arguments for the existence of god and thought of the following question:
Why are the arguments for god's existence not considered support for the disbelief of atheists? Why do so many believers, especially the brightest of the believers, think it is necessary to form arguments for god's existence, when god is so apparently evident. Why do they appeal to our reason, when they think we are fools. If they(christians)do not think of us as fools, then they disagree with scripture.
It seems to me, if god existed and It was obvious, then there would be no need to defend It's existence so ardently. I hope this makes sense.
More appropriately, If God existed then why do Creationists have to lie and attack science just to argue their point?
I have never seen a legitimate argument constructed for the validity of God that diverted their burden of proof or lied about science.. or rather repeat lies because they are ignorant of the scientific issue themselves.
Follow us on:
From the officers:
The ACA Lecture Series continues Sunday, December 8th at 12:15pm with activist Zack Kopplin talking about "Fighting Creationism in Louisiana and Now Texas". The lecture will be held at the Austin History Center, 9th and Guadalupe. The building opens at noon.