Wednesday, March 4, 2009

The Elijah Challenge

Yesterday, on my drive home I thought about god and if there is such a being as we humans define him or her, i.e. omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresent. This led me to ask; why does this being with these attributes seems so inept and impotent: I would ask a terrorist, why do you have to act on behalf of your god, why doesn't this being do something himself or herself without the aid of the terrorist, why does a christian need to witness or proselytize on behalf of their god to an unbeliever, the best way to convince a skeptic is by evidence, why doesn't this supernatural being or supreme being do anything to authenticate his or her existence? How is it, that we humans have to act on our god(s) behalf, for example, Joyce Meyers and Creflo Dollar and others Christians have missions to feed, clothe, and built shelters in so-called developing countries, why doesn't their god do it himself to prove to these people that he exist, then his believers can start from that point. Why are there apologist like William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Frank Turok, Norman Geissler, and Lee Strobel? Isn't this proof that their god does not exist, that he cannot prove himself directly, how is it, he always needs a middle man? The Christian will say, god gave us dominion over the earth and he watches over his word, so that it will not come back to him void, in other words, for him to go back on his declaration of giving humanity dominion is something he will not do, and therefore he does not interfere in human affairs, if the so-called death and resurrection of his son Jesus is not the biggest interference in humanity then what is? In other words, We are told that god does not interfere in human affairs but he did in Jesus, isn't this a contradiction. I think religious skeptics should have what I coin, the "Elijah challenge", if the believer's god(s) exist, the believer should be able call down fire from heaven. In 1st Kings 18 Elijah challenged the priest of Baal to prove whose god was the true god. Why don't skeptics challenge the next apologist to a fire calling contest with the believer having to prove their god(s) existence (the unbeliever does not have the burden of proof), this would end the debate. Think about it...

No comments: