Is Atheism True?
Dr. Brent Maundy, Catholic
Response to Opening Argument
Brent's Response to Jones First defense of Positive Atheism.
Objection: God who is omniscient and omnipotent (God of
unmodified classical theism) possesses mutually contradictory
properties. Why because assuming God knew he would impregnate Mary in 0
AD, God does not have the power to delay impregnating Mary in 1 AD.
Therefore God who is incapable of failing must be false and atheism
(positive) must be true.
Brent Reply 1: I reply that the example
cited by Mike is not a defense of atheism but rather makes no sense at
all. It is illogical. A God who is all powerful and omnipotent, having
known when (as in time wise by our standards) he by his own wisdom and
reasoning and planning would make Jesus become man, has no need to delay
impregnating Mary. God who is omniscient and omnipotent is
by definition outside of space and time as we human beings know it. He
is the creator of space and time and has ordered everything according to
a time and season as scripture tells us. Therefore he God would have no
need to change Jesus arrival date because God will shall always be done
and was done in 0 AD. Hint: Omnipotent. Therefore Mikes hypothetical
posturing that God possesses mutually contradictory properties is false,
because Jesus was only born once of a virgin in 0 AD showing that God
is omnipotent. As further proof to our readers there is no record of
Jesus Christ being born twice or God delaying or thinking of delaying
Jesus birth pre 0 AD.
Brent Reply 2: I reply that Mikes defense
is also false because Mike assumes that God would consider the
possibility as Mike has done that God would want to delay Mary’s
pregnancy. The reader should note that Mike gives no reason whatsoever
that God would want to follow Mikes reasoning for a delay
but nevertheless none is given. Even if Mike had the mind of God which
he does not have, given God will shall be done as the Christian
believes, there is no guarantee that an omniscient and omnipotent God
would follow Mikes line of reasoning. In fact I categorically state he
would not, as God’s ways are not our ways as scripture tells us.
Further I argue that we cannot even get to Mikes premises because
his example is illogical and a complete misunderstanding of what an
omniscient and who an omnipotent God really is. This is not a debate.
Copyright © 2014, American Catholic Truth Society, Scott Windsor
This message originated in the CatholicDebateForum on Yahoogroups.
All rights reserved on messages posted to this forum, however
permission is granted to copy messages to other forums, providing
this footer remains attached to the message.
To visit this group on the web, go to: