The Epic Plan of Salvation: The Sequel

I don't see why he can't just jump across...

A while back I made a quite sarcastic post lambasting the Epic Plan of Salvation found in the Bible. While I do think it covered a broad range of important points, I'd like to drill down a little deeper and focus on one particular issue: the play between faith/belief and knowledge/understanding. This post will be more geared toward already-believing Christians but will generally be a critique of the theology in general for those who don't fully understand how it works.

Why is that chair empty anyway?

All too often, hardworking Americans are sleeping soundly on a Saturday morning, only to be rudely awakened by two men at their front door carrying Bibles. When the door is opened, what will be the first thing to come out of the evangelists' mouths? Most likely, "Have you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior?" According to most Christians that I am aware of, the doctrine of salvation is the most important bit of theology from the Bible. Everything else pales in comparison to the question, "Are you saved?" But what do they mean by this question? There are many biblical verses with similar (but not always identical) answers. It generally goes like this:

Realize you are a sinner. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

Understand that you are condemned to death. "For the wages [payment] of sin is [eternal] death [in Hell]." (Romans 6:23)

In order to avoid this death, you must "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." (Acts 16:31) "[Jesus is] the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father [gets into heaven] except through [him]. (John 14:6)

So he can't jump across the gap but he's supposed to step
over the cross hump? I say give the man a pole and let him
try his hand at vaulting.

Some explain this as the "ABCs" of salvation: Admit that you are a sinner, Believe in Jesus, and Confess that Jesus is your Lord. The reasons for believing that any of the above verses are actually true are sort of assumed in the bible. Theologically, every single person that has ever lived has sinned and deserves to be tortured in hell forever as their just punishment. (No explanation for this necessary - it's just true according to the bible.) You must believe that Jesus took your punishment on the cross and accepting his sacrifice in your place is the only way to avoid hell and receive eternal life. Once you have done this, you are a True Christian™.

See anything missing from the above paragraph? If you were thinking "good deeds" or "a person's heart or attitude" you were right! (Christians are usually very proud of this. They believe it sets them apart from all other religions.) According to the Bible, it's not about what you've done, only what you believe. Many of you may find this as perplexing as I do - that there is a god who wants to forgive you but can only do so if you believe in this particular religion when it says that God became man and lived a perfect life and sacrificed himself to himself to appease himself for the wrong things that human beings have done to other human beings. Why wouldn't God just forgive everyone, or at least everyone who tried to be a good person? Because that's not how it works. You have to believe these very specific things. Which is usually fine and dandy for those who have grown up in Christian households because they are very aware of how this salvation thing works.

But what about those who have never heard before? What about American Indians who lived long before Columbus came and Catholicism could have spread? They would have had no clue what the right thing to believe was, which means there was no way to to believe in Jesus, which is the only way into heaven. Certainly I am not the first person to bring up this kink in the otherwise simple plan of salvation. Nonetheless, the bible seems to be very clear on the rules and therefore the ignorant seem to be doomed. How do Christians explain this troubling problem?

There are two camps. One takes the position that "Because Jesus is the only way, then by definition any person ignorant of the Scripture must be destined to Hell upon death." This is certainly harsh and therefore does not seem to enjoy support from the majority of the Christian crowd. If it were true, then we can easily see how bad a plan of salvation this is, since the vast majority of people who ever lived probably wouldn't know the exact right thing to believe unless a Christian explained it to them. These billions of people would certainly find themselves surprised to appear in the eternal lake of fire upon their death, especially if they were what we would consider good and kind people. Any god using this method of punishment would immediately be condemned as immoral, cruel, and sadistic by an honest, objective observer.

The other camp (and I make no attempt to argue which viewpoint is the "right" one) believes that in the absence of Scriptural understanding, God will judge peoples' hearts and how they dealt with the general revelation that was provided to them. By "general revelation," I mean any evidence that points to the existence of a god that can be observed by simply viewing nature. (Many Christians - and indeed the Bible itself - argue that we can deduce the fact that god exists by the fact that nature exists [Romans 1:20]. While I disagree with this notion, that's an argument for another day.) I understand this to mean that God will judge these peoples' hearts and if they were "good" people according to what they understood about morality, then they can be allowed access into heaven.

If the second viewpoint is true, then a simple question must be asked: Why use the belief based system for the non-ignorant at all? If it is possible to avoid punishment based on one's actions, then why introduce belief into the equation at all? That just makes it more likely that people will end up damned. If a good person who otherwise would have made it into heaven because of their Scriptural ignorance hears the Gospel, they will immediately enter a spiritual state of doomed-until-further-notice. What if they died before they decided to accept? This reminds me of a portion of a dialogue between a missionary and an Eskimo.

Eskimo: “If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to Hell?”

Missionary: “Not if you did not know.”

Eskimo: “Then why did you tell me?”

Up until now in this discussion, I have generally assumed that people would generally accept the Gospel if they had heard of it and understood it. This leaves out one major portion of the population, however: those from other religions and atheists. It is generally the case that people brought up in a certain religion will tend to stay with that religion even when approached by missionaries from other religions. But what about my case? Specifically, I am someone who grew up with Christianity and believed it up until around 20 years old, and now rejects it as a myth akin to any other religion that has died out. I am fully aware of what the requirements are for salvation according to the Bible, but I reject the truth of the bible out of honesty and education. "Why is this a problem?" you may ask.

Let's assume for the moment that I am both justified in my non-belief and that the Bible is true insofar as it speaks about salvation. I find no reason to believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose again due to lack of historical evidence, but I try to be a good person all the same. There is no reason, theologically, that I should fall under the salvation plan (viewpoint two) of those who have not heard, so I would inescapably be destined to hell. Because I am a good person? No - for as the bible states, even one sin is enough to condemn you to hell forever, no matter at what age that sin was. (Another popular theology is "Original Sin" which basically states that you would still go to hell even if you lived a perfect life, because you inherited the "sin nature" from Adam. Again, not worth discussing in detail but it is relevant in the case that I wanted to somehow argue that I've never done anything wrong, ever.) I would be condemned simply for not believing what I know is not true. This is a plan of salvation that does not factor in what you've done or what you know, it is simply a matter of belief. It rewards blind faith from those who could not possibly know if the biblical stories are true (such as indigenous tribes in Africa) over justified rejection in the case of those who have good reasons not to believe.

This makes sense to me in a religious context, since religions need people to follow regardless of truth. What better way to gain followers than the threat of an eternal fiery torture in hell, when the only thing one must do to be saved is believe the right thing and ultimately assimilate into that religion? What doesn't make sense is how a good, loving, and forgiving god could ever come up with a salvation plan like this. Ignoring the fact that God must have created hell and the rules that condemn everyone to it initially, only a cruel god would reward ignorance over knowledge and faith over justified belief.

The Christian response to this is often either A) You haven't done enough research or you would believe, or B) You are just suppressing (my) god's truth so that you can continue your life of sin. I need only to respond to each of those criticisms by saying that A) I have done more honest research than most Christians I know concerning all kinds of biblical topics, and B) If I really believed that the bible was true and, by extension, that I would be condemned to hell, why would I pretend to disbelieve just so that I could enjoy a short-lived life? Why would I think that any omniscient god couldn't see past my pretending? The fact is that I have no reason to think that the bible is true in any non-trivial way and therefore I have no reason to ask forgiveness from a Jesus I don't think exists. (An aside: why does Jesus want us to ask him for forgiveness instead of us asking forgiveness from those we've wronged? Why are we apologizing to Jesus at all? We haven't harmed him in any way.)

If any Christians are willing to respond, what are your explanations for a plan of salvation that doesn't involve God just forgiving everyone and giving each person a happy afterlife where no one will be wronged again? Why does God reward blind faith over honest research? And what are your opinions on how ignorant non-believers will be handled?

Were the plagues on Pharaoh because of Abram and Sarai unfair?

Plagues! Boils! Torture! Ice cream! Which one of these things is not like the other?

Sorry, I was looking at that tasty Ninja Turtle specimen from my last post and just had to find a way to fit ice cream into this blog entry as well. Carrying on, today we have yet another relevant newsletter from Answers in Genesis. This time, it's about Egypt and all that fun stuff we read about in Genesis. And you know how much I love talking about morality!

Abraham was married to his half-sister, Sarai, who, at age sixty-five, was still apparently beautiful.

I guess I can let that slide. I mean, if she's smokin' hot and still single at sixty-five then I won't hold half-incest against a brotha.

To protect himself, Abraham persuaded Sarah to lie about her marriage to him and pretend to be his sister.

Now the passage describes the rationale here being, "If I say she's my wife then he's going to kill me and take her for himself." Which is a huge compliment to her since, again, she's rockin' it out at 65 years old. This might be a reaction I would have if I could possibly be killed. Or perhaps I'd just say to Pharaoh, "this is my wife, but if you want her, take her." That way I could not lie and stay alive and acquire servants! This isn't exactly the kind of reaction I'd expect from a man who had supposedly talked to God, though. I mean, if I knew I had a universal superpower behind me that wouldn't let me die I'd probably just grab Pharaoh by the balls and tell him to give me some grain or else.

Somewhat ironic, really, how everyone in the bible who supposedly either talked to Yahweh or witnessed acts that could only have possibly been caused by him seem to still have quite shaky faith. And yet, thousands of years later, I'm chided for being an atheist because there is an "abundance" of evidence? It's almost comical, really.

Unprotected by her husband, Sarah was whisked off to Pharaoh’s harem. In exchange, Pharaoh showered Abraham with riches. Since Abraham didn’t properly protect Sarah, who was the promised mother of a new nation that would bless the whole world, God had to step in.

Well, he didn't have to, necessarily. At least, he didn't have to start right off with violence.  But who am I kidding? That's Yahweh's favorite pastime! He loves this sort of thing. If I were Yahweh, I'd probably just come down to Abraham and give him the "grab-by-the-balls" advice again. But clearly, that's much less fun.

God protected Sarah by sending “great plagues” on Pharaoh and his house.

Hmmm... I...

DOES NOT COMPUTE

The Hebrew words translated as “plagues” can refer to sores or wounds and does not require them to be deadly.

Yeah, but knowing Yahweh, they probably were. Just sayin'.

Sarah was kept safe and it seems Pharaoh eventually put two and two together and figured out that the timing and scope of this disease was somehow associated with Abraham’s arrival and that Sarah was Abraham’s wife.

Yeah, just like the destruction of the twin towers were judgments on the gays and the Japanese tsunamis were judgments on the atheists! It's all so crystal clear!

Pharaoh graciously let Abraham keep all the stuff he had acquired in Egypt and summarily sent him away.

Not, I'm sure, until Abraham grabbed him by the balls and demanded that he get to take his stuff with him. Cuz that's how he rolls now.

These plagues on Pharaoh and his house were not so much a punishment as a message, but they are definitely an example of the sins of one person causing others to suffer.

My punching your face repeatedly isn't so much a punishment for your not smiling at me, but rather a message, letting you know that customer service is always important and you won't be getting my business next time unless you ask me how my day was. It's just an example of the wrongs of one person causing... actually, just you to suffer. Really, that's almost more moral, in a way. My punching you, that is. (Metaphorically, of course. I'd never punch you. I actually like you a lot!) After all, I didn't punch your manager or that guy who sits across the room from you. Nope. I only took it out on you.

But God had a different idea, apparently. "PLAGUE THEM ALL! MUAHAHAHA..." Or at least, that's how I imagined it went down. There can't have been that many scenarios since, after all, all that really happened was that Pharaoh took what he thought was a beautiful unmarried woman.

Our cursed world is full of examples of innocents suffering for the sins of others. Drunk drivers, abusive parents, pregnant women on cocaine, thieves, rapists, and murderers are but a few examples of people who cause the innocent to suffer. At least in this case, the suffering was apparently non-lethal and had a clearly-defined purpose.

And all of the examples given are people suffering because of things out of their control. A good driver couldn't anticipate that drunk person coming around the corner at 60 miles/hr in the wrong lane. A rape victim can't always escape her captor and a sleeping person may not wake up until the thieves have come and gone. However, in this biblical scenario, Yahweh would theoretically be in complete control of the situation. It would be completely unnecessary for innocents to suffer for the sins of others. Unless, of course, he wanted it to.

And obviously in this story, he did. Which is especially evil, since the only person who could theoretically be at fault here was Abraham. But did God punish him? Not according to the passage. He never got so much as a verbal reprimand. But Pharaoh and who knows else were inflicted with "serious diseases" without a legitimate explanation. AiG hasn't explained this at all but have merely attempted to lessen the moral judgment on Yahweh.

I mean, look at their last sentence. They say "at least" as if they realize that this was a totally immoral and uncalled for action on their god's part but are saying, "Hey, it could have been worse!" Which, I suppose, is true. But also totally irrelevant. Just try that in court, if you're ever in front of a jury. "Yeah, I killed a man in Reno just to watch him die. But hey, at least I didn't kill two people, amirite?" The 'at least' excuse is somewhat clever, but it will only last until the Canaanites. Or Amalekites, I forget which people groups were slaughtered first.

So what's the moral of the story? That Yahweh doesn't have any. But wait, we already knew that!

Some Common Misconceptions About Atheists

Because I often have conversations with Christians who either explicitly or implicitly accuse me of believing something or holding some position that I don't, I'd like to say a few brief words. I mean, the words themselves will be brief. I make no claims about the length of my blog post itself. (Though if I can legitimately work pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis into a relevant paragraph, I probably deserve to violate my previous statements.)

1. "Atheists have no morals"

I hear this the most often so it gets the first spot. So I feel like I've definitely already addressed this in previous posts, but I'll reiterate the major point here. I can't speak for all atheists, but the majority of them, like myself, still agree that the concepts of right and wrong are important and relevant without the concept of a god. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" was around long before Jesus and will continue to be applicable long into the foreseeable future. We humans are empathetic creatures and we know what it feels like for others to be hurt, sad, sick, happy, and healthy. We realize that we have largely the same goals and that none of us can be the best we can be without other people in our lives. I find murder morally wrong because I value human life and the right to a person to his or her own. I find stealing to be wrong because I value ownership and the right of a person to be secure in his home and property. And I don't find homosexuality wrong because it involves two consentual people and doesn't hurt anyone outside the relationship in any kind meaningful way (outside the "I'm offended!" crowd).

2. "It takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a <religion>ist"

Atheism is really a lack of faith in a god or gods. I don't have faith that Yahweh doesn't exist any more than you have faith that Zeus doesn't. Our explanations of the world around us work perfectly well without the need to invoke a supernatural deity pulling the strings of the universe behind our backs. They also don't require beliefs in demonstrably false claims such as "the universe is <6000 years old" and "all modern languages were created at the tower of Babel." This claim is most likely just an attempt to make it seem like the statements "my god exists" and "your god doesn't exist" are on equal footing because they both require faith. Sorry, but to posit the existence of a deity, you need evidence. I don't need to provide you evidence of the non-existence of leprechauns to justify my non-belief; you must show me why they do. (See: null hypothesis)

3. "If you would just read the Bible/Koran, you would know the truth."

Many of us have read these books and find them to be disturbingly void of morals and evidence for their extraordinary claims. I've heard it said by some that "the quickest way to atheism is to read a bible." While I wouldn't say it leads to atheism itself, it is true that if one starts from the beginning and critically reads with an open mind, there's a slim chance that they'll suddenly convert. It would probably lead them to the opposite conclusion: that their god is mentally challenged, did a particularly poor job of planning ahead, or is losing a bet and needs to step up his game. In any case, I have like five physical bibles laying around and three more electronic searchable ones and I'm not a Christian.

4. "Atheists are angry at God"

This would mean that we actually believe in him but just don't like the guy. Many of us dislike the character portrayed in the bible but realize we don't actually hate a real thing. Would you accuse someone who gets angry at Darth Vader while watching Star Wars of actually being angry at a real Vader? Please.

5. "Atheists worship the devil"

Um, no. The devil doesn't exist either. Most satanists don't even worship the devil. Although to be fair, he does seem like a nicer guy than Yahweh.

6. "Some tyrannical dictators in the past were atheists and therefore you're both bad people."

Depends who you're talking about. While it's true that some genocidal maniacs were atheists, many were also religious. Even Hitler. I mean, take a look at this quote:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

I'm not saying he was a "true Christian" (often as that phrase is thrown around), but combining this with other quotes, it's pretty clear that he believed in some concept of a god. And I can condone his actions no more as a theist than atheist. However, it would be extremely difficult to say that the non-belief in god was the cause of their actions. And even if it was, it would have no bearing on whether a deity exists or whether any other atheist is immoral.

7. "Atheists think life is meaningless"

Imagine you walk up to a stand at a carnival and ask for an ice cream. It's the middle of July in Texas, 103° in the shade, and you've been walking around all day. The pudgy man behind the booth hands you your double-dip and tells you that this is the last ice cream cone in the world. Would your response be one of disgust, causing you to throw your cone on the ground and storm away? Or would you eat it all the more slowly, savoring every lick? My response is the latter in the context of my only life in this world. I only get one. Why waste it? That's why it is meaningful. No second chances or eternal life once I'm dead. I should make the most of what I have before it's over. Atheism does not inevitably lead one to nihilism, regardless of what your church leaders may have told you. I know plenty of non-believers and not a single person who thinks their life is fully devoid of meaning.

8. "Atheists claim that no god exists"

Close. We only lack a belief. Most atheists don't claim to know for certain that a god doesn't exist. We're just pretty sure he doesn't. (To be fair, some actually do take the hard-line position and are called "strong atheists," but I'm not one of them nor do they represent all of us.) Like the aforementioned leprechauns, I can't disprove their existence or any gods'. I am, however, justified in non-belief until positive evidence has been brought forth.

9. "Atheists wouldn't believe even if verifiable proof was shown to them."

Again, I can't speak for all atheists, but that's not true for me. I'm open to the idea that one could exist and I would publicly acknowledge it if the time ever came. That does not mean, however, that I would worship it. Any being that asks for or requires worship probably doesn't deserve it in the first place. I would judge that deity on its own merits, in the same way I judge other people. Probably more harshly if it is wiser or more knowledgeable than us.

10. "Atheists eat babies."

Aw, come on now, that's just wrong.

The Complete and Utter Destruction of Modern Atheism

As I was watching some videos on YouTube, I came across one that attempted to show by metaphysics and knowledge justification that atheists are wrong. I didn't think it was very convincing, but it did cite as one of its sources an essay after which I title this blog entry. What surprises me is that the author Lenardos attempts to not only say that atheists have no justification for their beliefs about the universe, but also that they have been "destroyed," which seems more like "complete and utter crap." It baffles me to see articles like this, but in a world where people with no qualifications think themselves educated enough to speak on a topic without researching, this was bound to happen.

The entire essay is about 3700 words so I wouldn't expect anyone to read it, though I got through most of it without barfing. I will cite his major points and provide rebuttals as I think he rambles far too much for me to criticize every minor thing he says.

When one thinks of the modern day atheist, one may think of a rational person, perhaps a scientist, an empiricist; someone who deals with the hard facts found in the world around us, someone who does not accept unjustified beliefs.

Yes, that would be the goal. Unfortunately, imperfect as we all are, we can only strive toward this and we get closer all the time.

This paper will show that there is a disconnect between this image of the atheist compared to the implications of the basic elements that make up the atheists theory of reality. What I mean by this is: we are going to find that if any atheistic theory of reality is true, then there is no justification for any knowledge about a world around us.

So here we go, off on an intellectual journey. We'll see if my world gets blown to bits or if his arguments just fizzle out like that fire cracker you always got on the 4th of July while all the other kids' exploded and caused them great happiness.

Now, I am not saying that we don’t know about the world around us, I am just pointing out that the elements of any atheistic theory of reality do not allow for the justification of that knowledge. We must keep this in mind at all times. The question is not, can we know anything at all about the world; but, given any atheistic theory of reality, can we know anything about the world?

Well that would appear to be a fair question. In fact, it's a fair question if you replace the word "atheistic" with "theistic." Or "deistic." But let's see where he's going with this.

Here is a short list of necessary preconditions the atheist (or anyone for that matter) would need to support the above:

1. sense perceptions that tell about the world
2. the uniformity of nature
3. inductive principle
4. deductive principle

But we are not done yet, there is one more level, the very basic level: one’s theory of reality. One’s theory of reality is the glasses one uses to see everything else. It is this level that must have the elements to support the entire philosophical structure. If it does not, then the entire structure falls apart.

Up to this point, his logic seems to be sound. Or at least, I don't have any objections to it. Now here's the point where he starts to slip up.

In this paper we will examine the implications of all logically possible atheistic metaphysics, to see where they lead. I think you will be surprised. We will go step by step through all atheistic theories of reality. Not only will we show that the elements of all atheistic theories of reality are insufficient to justify sense perceptions, but all of them actively destroy the possibility for any justification of sense perceptions. The first thing we will find is that there are two main categories that all cosmologies fall into; they are atheism and theism (see chart 1)

 

 

The Theistic category says that one element of reality is the existence of God. The Atheistic category says that in the scheme of reality, no God exists. Since this is an antithesis, all cosmologies will have to fall into one of these two categories. In other words, there is no logical third option possible.

My first objection is his classification system. Why classify it according to belief in a God? Why do you think that is relevant at all? Why not according to culture or language or brain chemistry? All of those affect your perceptions of the world as well. Nevertheless, let's follow him down this path.

If everything is what it is by accident or unintentionally, then so is the way that every particle, atom and molecule interacts with every other particle, atom and molecule. There is no intent, reason or justification for them being as they are.

False. This is an equivocation. While it may be true that everything is what it is "unintentionally" (as intentions are typically thought of as coming from minds), that does not mean there is no reason or justification as to why they are as they are. It doesn't even matter if I don't know the reasons why things are as they are. I don't understand how oxygen and hydrogen react, but does that mean there is no reason for them to do so?

From a naturalist point of view, you can say things are what they are, but no justification can be applied to what or why they are. To do so would be to deny the basic concept of unintentionalism. So, there is no reason or possible justification for thinking that our sense perceptions give us information about the world around us. I am not saying that our perceptions don’t give us information about the world around us, I am just saying that the naturalist theory of reality does not allow for a justification that our sense perceptions do tell us about the world around us.

Now how do you make that leap? From "don't know why something is" to "no justification that your sense perceptions are accurate" is a non sequitur. Sorry.

Let me put it this way, given the elements of the naturalist’s theory of reality it is possible that our sense perceptions are telling us about the world around, but it is just as possible that they are not. We can never know.

Yes, it is true that our sense perceptions could be fundamentally completely wrong. I don't know why they would be, but it's possible, sure. Perhaps the question you should ask yourself, Lenardos, is, "do I have any reason to disbelieve my senses?" And not in an "oh, sometimes I can be wrong" kind of way but in a basic, conceptual way. Do you think that, largely, our senses are wrong about pretty much everything? The author seems to think they're OK, but also claims that I can't say that. So far he hasn't offered any real logical reason for me to believe him yet.

The next question is about unintentionalism. There are three possible positions here:

1. Everything is what it is unintentionally
2. Everything is what it is intentionally
3. Some things are what they are intentionally.

The latter two require an intender be involved either in all things or some things. May I suggest that a cosmic intender might be a problem for any atheistic position? So we are left with just unintentionalism, everything is what it is unintentionally. So, here we are at naturism.

It depends on what scale you ask that question. It may well have been unintentional for whatever process brought about the universe as we know it today, but some things are what they are intentionally due to natural beings capable of intent.

Since we have now shown that the only logically possible atheistic cosmologies are negationism and naturism, and since we have shown that neither of these can offer a justification for sense perceptions, we have shown that if ANY atheistic worldview is true, there can be no justification for sense perception.

You are correct in that on some level, we must assume it to be true that our senses do function in a way that accurately represents the reality we live in. What you haven't demonstrated is the idea that I have no reason whatsoever to believe that my sense perceptions are wrong, or what the alternative is in that case. But you don't offer one and in fact don't touch on the theist's position at all.

So, where does this leave the modern atheist? Let’s see: There is no reason for the atheist, given any atheistic theory of reality, to believe that his sense perceptions are telling him anything about the world around him. The basic assertion that his sense perceptions do tell him about the world around him is an unjustified belief.

No reason to believe that my sense perceptions tell me anything about the world around me? How about the world around me? Is that not a good reason to believe one exists? Do you recommend I reject this reality that I experience and instead stare at a wall for hours trying to come up with some way to  prove that I exist in a universe? I admit that it could be all wrong. It could just be an illusion or a trick that my mind is playing on me or a trick a god is playing on me, but I have no reason to think so. I do have every reason to believe that the world I see is the world that I am a part of and to not do so would be both irresponsible and insane.

What irks me is that you trot out this idea that because I can't conclusively prove that my sensory inputs are perfect, I have absolutely no justification in my beliefs about anything. You have not demonstrated this point (nor have you come close) but you speak as though you have "utterly destroyed" atheism. I still fail to see how the concept of a god has anything to do with this discussion. One point I would bring up to him is one that he thinks he has answered in his paper:

Objection 1— “You are in the same boat as I am, you can't justify sense perception from your theory of reality either!

Answer— First, the assertion that I can’t justify sense perception from my theory of reality is unproven, before you can make that assertion you have to provide the argument for it.

Second, it wouldn’t matter if I was in the same boat as you. That does not further or change your position. Regardless of who is in the boat with you, you still remain in the boat. The atheist's failure to justify sense perception from the elements of his theory of reality remains.

This objection is known as “Tu Quoque,” or the “You too! fallacy.” It is a fallacious means of reasoning. It falls under the category of “fallacies of relevance,” for the reason I mention above.

My assertion wouldn't need to be proven because you have provided no justification for your own senses based on a deity. I assume you do think that you have done so because if you hadn't this essay would have been irrelevant. However, you don't attempt to prove your position because you couldn't. Because as I've already said, the concept of gods has nothing to do with the discussion at all. My assumption is that you believe that a god (and not just any god, but the one you came up with in your own mind or believe because of your faulty perceptions) wouldn't deceive you with this reality. While that may sound more convincing, it's actually less convincing. On top of the assumptions that atheists make (that the universe exists, that we can know something about it, etc), theists make another assumption that is that a god exists. Well done. You've now made the problem worse. You have to attempt to show that a god exists for which there is no evidence in this reality (much less in any other reality that could possibly exist that might apparently be real but we couldn't know because our senses are wrong) and as show the other axioms to be true as well.

And that's your problem, Lenardos. Believing a god to exist doesn't make your problems go away. It just makes you look more like an amateur philosopher that hasn't taken the basic introductory course that any good university should offer. It didn't take me half a second to see past this "destruction" of atheism - and that should say something. If I've got it bad, you've got it worse. Stop bickering over "you can't prove that reality exists" and do something constructive, like building houses for poor people.

Unless you think they don't exist.