I didn’t say God does not exist! There is no good reason to think that one does because you haven’t substantiated…
What amounts to a good reason and is there any such thing as a good reason and who defines and derteminses what a good reason is? Of course the unbeliever must not proceed if he cant answer these questions.
The unbeliever usually wants a reason justifying the existence of God to be provided on His own terms of unbelief. Of course the unbeliever may be very courteous and appear to be polite but this doesnt even matter, He is living in rebellion and of course this means He is biased or at least His opinion is purely subjective.
The unbeliever demands for material evidence, He wants something that He can touch, see and hear to prove God indeed exists. How do we know this? We know this because he rejects scripture.
To the unbeliever the testimony of scripture is not enough, in fact the unbeliever in all cases never accepts the bible even if he may just grudgingly accept certain parts, He will doubt the rest and that is just as good as rejecting all of the bible, since the bible is the wholesoime word of God its to be accepted as true in its entirety. The unbeliever as we can already see by now will not accept the testimony of scripture and remember that scripture is our sole source of propositions about the nature, charecter and attributes of God.
The bible tells us that by the things that have been created God is known to the unbeliever, but the unbeliever lives in rebellion, so it follows that He will reject the works of God in creation, thus armed with this kind of knowledge pertaining the nature of the unbeliever we must not even bother to bring the arguement to him that nature testifies God’s existence, because the unbeliever is too foolish to understand this, and besides presenting this nature of evidence does not prove the Triune God, only scripture does. Accepting that God is creator pressuposes that He created this very universe by His Word, Jesus Christ who keeps it in the orderly state that it is in by the word of His power.
The unbeliever rejects scripture which is the revelation of God, He rejects creation as testimony of God’s creative power and therefore God’s ertenal omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence, we dont even need to ask him to confirm that indeed He denies God’s power as displayed in creation because the bible already tells us that the unbeliever even though having innate knowledge will deny these truths.
So what possibly can He accept? Nothing! Here is why; The unbeliever has a set of first principles that already reject Supernaturalism since he rejects all or even part of scripture and it is within the first principles that oppose scripture that the unbeliever derives his concept of proof from. In this case its sure that the unbeliever demands a reason thats shows God to be existent only within a framework that is acceptable to Him.
So what is this framework that is acceptable to him? Since the unbeliever demands a good reason that proves the existence of God apart from scripture, That is, the unbeliever is not talking about the the reason, logic of John 1 as we believers would rightly assert that Christ is true foundation of all reason. It therefore means that the unbeliever pressuposes human reason as foundation of true reason and therefore as the sole basis on which he is be willing to accept the existence of God.
Of course the bible already tells us that within man is the innate knowledge of God but the unbeliever being rebelious, supresses this knowledge and refuses to accept this fact as basis for the existence of God. After all in order to know and understand that anybody has the innate knowledge of God, one must accept the bible since its the source of this proposistion that man has the innate knowledge of God.
The unbeliever implies rationalism as a way of thinking that claims to utilise reason as tool of discovering and to deducing an entire system of truth, [ Vincent Cheung, Captive to Reason [ 2009 ] Of course rationalism on its own cannot yield any knowledge because its just but a method that requires knowledge on which to process and make conclusions.
Therefore when the unbeliever demands a reason that proves the existence of God on for the basis of reason alone, Its just plain clear he is not even reasoning at all since how can the mind even make inferences about anything that is not known in the first place.
The unbeliever by human reason alone cannot know anything to be true, Fact is human reason on its own is not a source of any truth but rather its a method of discovery, thus before reason can be deployed they must be knowledge on which reason will be applied.
The believer has a source of knowledge and that is scripture by which God uses the occassion at the time we read, hear or recall scripture to communicate His truth to the rational mind. What about the unbeliever who denies revelation and still claims to have basis for reason? Does he have a self authenticating and comprehensive source of knowledge from which He can deduce a comprehensive worldview?
The unbeliever does not have a self authenticating worldview, He relies on multiple and obviously self contradicting worldviews. He may now resort to his five senses as basis for knowledge on which his mind will make inferences, but again we realise that the senses cannot furnish us with knowledge because “Sense data (the facts of experience) do not come with their own built-in int
erpretation. Rational conclusions cannot come from sense experience alone. Empiricism, therefore, fails as a truth-finding method.” – [ Phil Fernandes, Gordon Clark [ 1997 ]
Of course the unbeliever will keep on bringing more worldviews implicitly or explicitly such as skepticism, secular humanism and so on but none of these can stand the self inflicting nature of their own self contradicting nature.