I addressed the points already there in the article comments, but I thought I would just re-post them here to have a reference to them for a later date if needed, you know for future dogma. Enjoy.
10) Maybe not, but you cannot claim its morally wrong to do so. If you do you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs. Google "atheists eat babies"
9) But LaVeyan teachings are based on individualism, self-control, and "eye for an eye" morality. Certainly not a literal worship of any being other than the self. That would be defeating the whole purpose of the Satanic Bible in the first place. Atheists do worship the same god as Satanists and that is self.
8) Fear threats of hell? What a moronic statement. John we do it to WARN you not threaten you. A Christian warns "If you speed in this school zone you will get a ticket, hurt children, or even go to jail" The Atheist says "Don't threaten me Christian" That Atheist is a crazy person talking. Fitting for the originator of the article.
7) You DO claim to be god though. At least you try to place yourself in the Judges chair. Van Til said it this way "If God's authority must be authorized or validated by the authority of human reasoning and assessment, then human thinking is more authoritative the God Himself-in which case God would not have final authority, and indeed would no longer be God."
6) You don’t claim to be better than God but in the same breath you claim He is not good? How ironic. Are you OK?
5) As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
3) You cannot claim certainty about anything within your worldview. There is a HOST of reasons why you have faith in a religion, called Atheism. You certainly cannot claim there is no evidence for the existence of God, because there is. But because you deny the evidence, its what makes you follow a dogma called atheism.
2) See above. You do have faith that your religion is right. You deny evidence. Bahnsen said it best, "In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him [Atheist] its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism."
Bahnsen also pointed out, "As [a Christian] I would say to an Atheist, there is plenty of evidence for God's existence. God has provided it everywhere. God has provided evidence in the stars of the heavens. God has provided evidence in the power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest. God has provided evidence in the intricacy of the human body. God has provided evidence in the course of history. God has provided evidence in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites. God has provided evidence in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection. God has provided evidence in the way He judges nations. God has provided evidence in the scriptures, revealing Himself through the prophets and the apostles. God provides evidence when you look at the wonderful harmony of the Bible written over many centuries by many men. God has provided evidence in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people. God has provided evidence in the life transforming power of the Bible. We can go on and on."
1) Fallacious argument. Look up "appeal to popularity" You claim you are not a religion but then you boldly and proudly say "we are the second largest denomination in America." That would be laughable, if it were not so sad. You also said, "Worldwide we represent third place among the world religions, even though we're not religious." I just had to repeat that one to have these folks stare at it for another moment. I will say this, you are rich with irony.
Problem is John, you use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular. With that line of thought, no one's reasoning could be invalid.
Salvation is not just for the next life John, et al - Not only did Christ's death and resurrection save souls for eternity, it saves our reasoning now. Again, I beg you to repent and turn from rejecting the God you know exists, and accept the free gift of Jesus Christ's payment for your sins, so that you might be saved from Hell, spend an eternity with God, AND have a firm foundation for your reasoning NOW.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteAtheists are just honest people.
All I am saying with honesty is
"I don't believe your lies"
Simple as that.
Bahnsen also pointed out, "As [a Christian] I would say to an Atheist, there is plenty of evidence for God's existence. God has provided it everywhere. God has provided evidence in the stars of the heavens. God has provided evidence in the power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest. God has provided evidence in the intricacy of the human body. God has provided evidence in the course of history. God has provided evidence in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites. God has provided evidence in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection. God has provided evidence in the way He judges nations. God has provided evidence in the scriptures, revealing Himself through the prophets and the apostles. God provides evidence when you look at the wonderful harmony of the Bible written over many centuries by many men. God has provided evidence in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people. God has provided evidence in the life transforming power of the Bible. We can go on and on."
ReplyDeleteILMFAO this only evidence of gullibility.
You creationism fanboys are hardcore thats for sure.
I'm sure you're familiar with Euthyphro's dilemma, Dan - is something good because your god commands it, or does your god command it because it's good?
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that you're in all kinds of trouble here, because if you answer yes to the first, your god's morality is arbitrary...and we all know from reading the Bible that he has a yen for watching babies' heads being dashed against walls.
If you answer yes to the latter, you must acknowledge a standard of good that is binding on your god, so whence that standard?
You think you can get out of this by saying that "god's nature is good and god can't go against his nature", but I note that you still haven't explained how a supernatural entity can have the kind of defining limits that make up a 'nature'.
Also, we don't deny evidence - we just deny that it's evidence of your god. It's evidence of other stuff, like evolution, gravity, continental drift, the expanding universe...no gods accounted for, so the simplest explanation is that there are none present.
ReplyDeleteGetting back to the morality thing, I think you're quite wrong in saying that atheists have no basis on which to ground their morality. Reality is the ultimate standard, and experience is our window to reality (go ahead and argue with that if you want, but I don't think you'll get very far). These are the bases on which godless morality is built.
When an unbeliever says something is wrong, there are various things they might mean - most obviously, that the action in question almost invariably has been observed to have bad consequences for those involved, or that it is harmful disrespectful to a person, treating them as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves. Fundamentally, there is the appeal to reciprocity - "Would you want someone to do that to you?" We're social animals, and in order to get along in society, we have a real and present need to treat others as we would like them to treat us.
What atheists don't have is any transcendent metaphysical category of "things that are wrong", and nor do we need one. Life in the world is always going to present us with challenges and choices and ethical dilemmas, and these are perfectly navigable without supposing there is a god standing over us shaking his fist and threatening us with hellfire if we don't toe the line.
Let's take the case of eating babies as an example, since it was brought up in Loftus's original post.
ReplyDeleteIf there were, say, a transcendent law that said, "thou shalt not eat babies", that would presumably mean that doing so would be wrong in any and all circumstances.
It's easy to see why intentionally killing a baby in order to eat it (or eating it alive, which would be even more horrific) would be judged to be wrong by pretty much every human who wasn't a psychopath. Not only is it harming a helpless sentient being, but it is also injuring those to whom the baby is kin, and who presumably are attached to it.
What if it's the parent of the baby doing the eating? Well, again, it's harming an innocent sentient being, and it's demonstrably bad, certainly in an evolutionary sense, to eat one's own offspring, except perhaps in the most dire of circumstances.
But what about if the baby is already dead, say, of sudden infant death syndrome? Would it still be wrong to eat it? Sure, we might personally think it would be disgusting to do so, but it's by no means clear that there would be any harm done - especially not if the parent of the baby comes from a culture where it is an act of respect to consume the bodies of one's dead kin.
The point is, Dan, humans do have an inbuilt moral sense, and this is a direct result of our evolution as social animals. Very young children, who can't even explain their actions, demonstrate an instinct for fairness - especially when they see another child being given something that they don't have! What's more, this same sense of fair play has been observed in other social mammals, and even some bird species.
If you want to claim this as your god's doing, go ahead - but then you'll have to find a way to explain why wolves and chimpanzees have a simpler form of the same moral sense we humans possess. Does your god have plans for them too?
"Bahnsen also pointed out, "As [a Christian] I would say to an Atheist, there is plenty of evidence for God's existence. God has provided it everywhere. God has provided evidence in the stars of the heavens. God has provided evidence in the power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest. God has provided evidence in the intricacy of the human body. God has provided evidence in the course of history. God has provided evidence in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites. God has provided evidence in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection. God has provided evidence in the way He judges nations. God has provided evidence in the scriptures, revealing Himself through the prophets and the apostles. God provides evidence when you look at the wonderful harmony of the Bible written over many centuries by many men. God has provided evidence in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people. God has provided evidence in the life transforming power of the Bible. We can go on and on.""
ReplyDeleteTechnically Bahnsen cannot make this claim since he can't trust his autonomous reasoning. This leads to the conclusion that he cannot know which revelations from god are genuine.
Technically Bahnsen cannot make this claim since he can't trust his autonomous reasoning. This leads to the conclusion that he cannot know which revelations from god are genuine.
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty much what we've been saying all along, Meatros. The only argument you'll get from Dan as to how he can personally know that, a) his interpretation of scripture is correct, and b) that his god is not giving him false revelations for mysterious, god-type reasons is that Dan just "knows" these things, because his god told him so, and he knows his god is trustworthy because his god told him so...and so on, ad nauseum. Nor will you get any explanation as to how he can discern genuine divine revelation from subjective experience or psychosis. On these subjects, like every other presupper I've ever encountered, Dan is a stonewaller extraodinnaire.
Hi Dormant, I realize this isn't your position, but since I have some time and you put it out there I hope that no one will be terribly offended if I comment on your interpretation of Dan's position (I'm new to this blog, so I don't have a good handle on how accurate your interpretation is):
ReplyDeleteYou write: "a) his interpretation of scripture is correct, "
I don't think that Dan could actually admit that it's *his* interpretation, since that would be a human interpretation and therefore necessarily wrong (since it is based on autonomous reasoning). Still, I think that if he is honest, *he'd* have to do just this.
It's an interesting paradox.
You wrote: "and b) that his god is not giving him false revelations for mysterious, god-type reasons is that Dan just "knows" these things, because his god told him so, and he knows his god is trustworthy because his god told him so...and so on, ad nauseum."
If this is his position, then it seems to presuppose autonomous reasoning, which he also rejects. Meaning his worldview is internally inconsistent. It must presuppose autonomous reasoning in order to figure out which revelations are correct - you imply this by Dan's mysterious knowledge (he 'knows'). It seems that we are on the same page (in that I'm apparently coming into a criticism that has already been leveled at Dan).
You Write: "Nor will you get any explanation as to how he can discern genuine divine revelation from subjective experience or psychosis. On these subjects, like every other presupper I've ever encountered, Dan is a stonewaller extraodinnaire."
Yes, I have experienced similar from presuppers. I'm wondering if Dan would clarify these things for us.
My hope is that he will - however, in my experience Presuppers are some of the most dogmatic of Christians (maybe necessarily?). The whole appeal of presuppositionalism seems to be the attack on atheism. Which I can certainly appreciate - which is to say that I think that some of the questions that presuppositionalists have are interesting and should lead atheists to examine what they believe (myself included). That said, it seems that presuppositionalists do not actually do an internal critique of their own worldview.
The whole appeal of presuppositionalism seems to be the attack on atheism.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I agree with that, but only for technical reasons. Presuppositionalism isn't an attack on atheism, per se. It can be used as a basis for such an attack, but at it's core it's merely an attempt to rebuff attacks. You only have to watch Dan's bumbling efforts to respond to his critics to see it: rather than address the points being made, he demands that people "account" for their axioms. Rather than provide his own, he asserts that his presuppositions need no justification.
Presuppositionalism is merely clever rhetoric designed to stop discussion. In essence, it's the last refuge of a mind besieged by "unanswerable" questions.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteYou overlook something. I am not an atheist. Remember, I list that definition to point out that I don't match it.
Just out of curiosity, Pvblivs, if you don't mind my asking, how do you define your beliefs, if they are susceptible to definition, that is?
ReplyDeleteI've recently realised that my personal beliefs pretty much fit the definition of naturalistic pantheism, but it also strikes me that as far as Dan is concerned, this is pretty much indistinguishable from straight out atheism - I certainly don't believe in his version of god.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>> I am not an atheist. Remember, I list that definition to point out that I don't match it.
I wrestled with that one for some time. If it quacks like a duck... To be fair I was going to say atheistic friend but that would be essentially the same thing. So are you considering yourself, once and for all, a non-theist? If that is in deed the case, and that is what I wrestled with, that would still make you have a "weakly atheistic" worldview. We have determined now what NOT to call you, an atheist, but to be clear what do we specifically call you, as a description of your worldview?
Dan- I'll help you out!
ReplyDeleteI could think of a few things to call you PBS!
:-)
PBS- I hope to one day call you my brother in Christ.
Now see- you THOUGHT I was gonna be mean?!?
Well, let's address Dan:
ReplyDelete10) Objective morality does not exist. Objective means external to us, quantifiable as in a law of nature or capable of being observed by more than one party. Most people find this uncomfortable because it forces you to THINK about your morality and DEFEND those thoughts with reason. Simply proclaiming that X authority told you to behave a certain way is the lazy position, yet it doesn't solve the problem of there being no objective morality, it simply defers the problem onto someone else (the authority in question).
Therefore, no one can say that eating babies, molesting children, or killing all humans is wrong OBJECTIVELY. What we can do is form a foundation for our morality from certain assumptions, and determine morality from that. You do it as much as we do, just unwittingly since you follow an authority that does it.
9) Irrelevant, and inaccurate. Atheist is negative adjective group descriptor; in other words it just means that a group does not believe in gods (and commonly) the supernatural. Worshiping the self is not a quality of atheism, any more than brown hair is. They may only be subsets within the group of individuals who comprise atheists.
8) It is a threat because it is not substantiated and is used to emotionally justify certain assumptions about life and death. Until you can prove that god exists AND prove that it is your god AND prove that the bible is correct about the general nature of that god and reality, you are just using an emotional appeal.
7) Again making inaccurate claims about a group. A subset of atheists may consider themselves as gods in the figurative sense but that is not a part of Atheism. Also, you still are confused about the nature of morality. Because morality is not objective, it means that there is no single morality which is reflected in nature, and so we can compare our morality with an allegedly divine morality at whim. There is no tier here, no morality is greater than the other, even an alleged deity's morality is not superior or inferior to ours, but we may make subjective claims which find it lacking.
6) Note the qualifier "IF."
5) It doesn't matter if you define yourself as knowing the hearts of others. That doesn't make it so. I can define my belief as being that Christians are in denial of the lack of existence of god and in their ultimate rebellion to decency seek to hasten mankind's demise to bring about a second coming that deep down they know never will happen, but this would still be incorrect because I cannot know the motivations of some two billion people nor can I know the true intentions of a single person. I can only make educated inferences. This is what you are doing now, only you call it something else. I call it pretentious and incorrect.
4) Atheism has no religion. If you cannot grasp this, then it is because your religion has inserted itself such that you can only see things in religious terms. Likewise there is no point of dogma in atheism, because atheism is a negative adjective, it describes merely what something doesn't have.
3) The larger scientific community and a host of skeptics and philosophers disagree with you there. Put another way, if you have evidence that god exists, submit it to skeptics and scientists, and IF it passes those hurdles your argument will be worth a second look.
2) Atheism is not synonymous with naturalism, it is a negative adjective. Atheism cannot be a religion for the same reason that the irreligious are not a type of church. Your statement is contradictory.
1) Why don't you look up that fallacy yourself? In the context it was a legitimate use of population figures. The claim he was refuting was that atheists are a minority. Therefore he provided numbers which suggest that atheists are more common than detractors think.
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDelete10) Maybe not, but you cannot claim its morally wrong to do so. If you do you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs. Google "atheists eat babies"
What rubbish. We can make the claim just as easily as any theist - see DD's response for details.
9) But LaVeyan teachings are based on individualism, self-control, and "eye for an eye" morality. Certainly not a literal worship of any being other than the self. That would be defeating the whole purpose of the Satanic Bible in the first place. Atheists do worship the same god as Satanists and that is self.
So you agree with Loftus that we don't worship Satan, well done. The crap about self-worship is, of course, just crap.
8) Fear threats of hell? What a moronic statement. John we do it to WARN you not threaten you. A Christian warns "If you speed in this school zone you will get a ticket, hurt children, or even go to jail" The Atheist says "Don't threaten me Christian" That Atheist is a crazy person talking. Fitting for the originator of the article.
Remember kids it's not a 'threat', it's a 'warning' (totally ignoring these words are synonyms lol).
7) You DO claim to be god though. At least you try to place yourself in the Judges chair. Van Til said it this way "If God's authority must be authorized or validated by the authority of human reasoning and assessment, then human thinking is more authoritative the God Himself-in which case God would not have final authority, and indeed would no longer be God."
Well done for totally ignoring Loftus' point and attacking a strawman with an appeal to authority.
6) You don’t claim to be better than God but in the same breath you claim He is not good? How ironic. Are you OK?
Which bit of "if God existed" didn't you understand?
cont'd...
cont'd...
ReplyDelete5) As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
Your position is untenable - you can't even be certain your own 'revelation' isn't simply a delusion - so how you expect us to take your claims about us seriously truly beggars belief.
4) Yes your religion has a dogma and you all follow it. Even an Atheist friend of mine (Pvblivs) said, "In actual common usage, atheism means the specific belief that there is no God. Simply put, some people want to broaden the category of atheism so as to make the category to which people want to refer in such discussions too cumbersome to specify. If, for some reason, one wishes to identify himself only as not a theist, the term non-theist will suffice. But the term is not often used, as the category is useless to discussion. And that is why I regard the attempt to broaden "atheist" to be synonymous with "non-theist" to be dishonest. "
Once more you fail to address what Loftus actually said. He doesn't try to re-define atheism, he merely expresses one point that people who self-identify as atheist will most likely agree on - God probably desn't exist. You then make another appeal to authority while burning your strawman.
3) You cannot claim certainty about anything within your worldview. There is a HOST of reasons why you have faith in a religion, called Atheism. You certainly cannot claim there is no evidence for the existence of God, because there is. But because you deny the evidence, its what makes you follow a dogma called atheism.
You can't claim certainty either - not that that will stop you. And we state that there is no evidence for God because so far everything you've claimed as evidence for God is easily dismissable once examined in the light of reason.
cont'd...
cont'd...
ReplyDelete2) See above. You do have faith that your religion is right. You deny evidence. Bahnsen said it best, "In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him [Atheist] its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism."
Another strawman. I don't have faith that atheism is right, I believe that it is the right choice based on the evidence. Bahnsen is, as usual, making shit up (it seemed to be a hobby he enjoyed a great deal). There are many people, who identify as atheist, who have given examples of things they'd accept as evidence for God. It's not their fault that Bahnsen couldn't actually produce any of them.
Bahnsen also pointed out, "As [a Christian] I would say to an Atheist, there is plenty of evidence for God's existence. God has provided it everywhere. God has provided evidence in the stars of the heavens. God has provided evidence in the power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest. God has provided evidence in the intricacy of the human body. God has provided evidence in the course of history. God has provided evidence in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites. God has provided evidence in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection. God has provided evidence in the way He judges nations. God has provided evidence in the scriptures, revealing Himself through the prophets and the apostles. God provides evidence when you look at the wonderful harmony of the Bible written over many centuries by many men. God has provided evidence in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people. God has provided evidence in the life transforming power of the Bible. We can go on and on."
Shorter Bahnsen: God has provided evidence by cunningly camouflaging the evidence as everything that appears to be natural and if only you believed the Bible then you'd believe that there's evidence too.
1) Fallacious argument. Look up "appeal to popularity" You claim you are not a religion but then you boldly and proudly say "we are the second largest denomination in America." That would be laughable, if it were not so sad. You also said, "Worldwide we represent third place among the world religions, even though we're not religious." I just had to repeat that one to have these folks stare at it for another moment. I will say this, you are rich with irony.
You've misinterpreted the argumentum ad populum. Pointing out that atheists are more numerous than poeple think isn't an appeal to popularity it's a simple statement of an evidence based fact.
I would agree with Christopher that honest atheists unlike any believer do not base their world view on unfalsifiable dogma. I think most of us base their world view on an initial position of doubt, that only accepts scientifically identified data as rational explanations for the world we live in. Unlike believers we have no problem adjusting our positions if the evidence changes. Most of us would likely accept God as a reality if there was a falsifiable theory about God and the provided evidence would make it likely for the theory to be true. Unfortunately, at this stage, the evidence does not hold up.
ReplyDeleteAll religions include certain dogmas, atheism does not. It is based on a very solid, thoughtful analysis of data and philosophical concepts. I find it interesting that the concept of doubt was specifically addressed in the bible (remember Thomas the apostle), and I wonder whether this was added to the canonical bible in an effort to keep people from critically analyzing the evidence and thinking for themselves, not just accepting the word of the church as truth.
Andal,
ReplyDeleteGod says He has revealed Himself to ALL mankind in such a way you can be certain of it. Now, if you reject the notion of God you are literally lying to yourself to do so. You will be without excuse on that very scary day for you. You know that day of Judgment is coming, yet you are hopeful that it will never arrive. This is all according to God's Word now. God has revealed to us that He can never lie and He can be trusted that what He says is truth and comes true. It will be a very frightening day for you. I day I wish to help you avoid.
Atheism has its dogma also no matter how you spin it. You do not take the stance of "I don't know" as an agnostic or a non-theist. You have a worldview that dogmatically states there is NO God. As one of our past posts states, "In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism."
This, my friend, is a dogmatic position that the evidence MUST comport to your worldview. You must squeeze the evidence into the little box called atheism. It cannot ever, ever be God. If it were, you would have to change your entire view of this world and universe. Your worldview, that you hold onto dogmatically, would have to be ditched as not reliable. You would be forced to admit that you're wrong and God is right. To me, that takes a miracle twofold. One, that you are willing to be wrong and eagerly wish to find God, the God you just know doesn't exist, setting aside the silliness of believing in a "fairy tale". Second, that God changes your entire worldview and your heart is essentially born again with a new worldview that reveals to you a spiritual world that you believed never existed before. It would shake your foundation completely apart. It would place you off kilter more then any earthquake this world has ever experienced. You would be exposed and vulnerable and have no choice but to trust God to save you. You would plead for God to help you from your wickedness and being you because you feel so ashamed as who you were all those years. You would despise this world and all the evil in it. You would not live for this world, but for the next.
Do you see yourself getting to that point? No? I certainly didn't. God miraculously changed my heart forever. I hope you give God the benefit of the doubt, a doubt you hold onto so closely and dogmatically, and plead for God to save you...someday. If that never happens, you both will know the reasons for it very clearly.
D.A.N. said... (to Andal)
ReplyDeleteGod says He has revealed Himself to ALL mankind in such a way you can be certain of it.
Actually it's you that says God has done this and, despite being asked on numerous occasions, you've been singularly unable to demonstrate the truth of your claim.
God has revealed to us that He can never lie
Except when He does. As Reynold has pointed out - see:
1 Kings 22:23
2 Chronicles 18:22
Ezekiel 14:9
2 Thessalonians 2:11
You do not take the stance of "I don't know" as an agnostic or a non-theist.
Redefining positions to suit your argument does not make you correct.
You have a worldview that dogmatically states there is NO God.
I do not know about Andal but I have told you several times that that does not describe my position. As an agnostic atheist I do not believe that any Gods exist but I do not claim to know it for certain.
This, my friend, is a dogmatic position that the evidence MUST comport to your worldview.
No Dan, it's not that the evidence MUST comport with my worldview, it's that it DOES comport with my worldview.
You must squeeze the evidence into the little box called atheism. It cannot ever, ever be God.
Wrong again. God could simply grant everyone omniscience (he is alleged to be omnipotent after all) so that they could be certain that what you claim is true.