Does an Atheist Have an Explanation for Existence? Romans 1:20

[makesends]

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

All one first question, really: @Greg do you have an explanation for the fact of existence? Do you see no need to explain it, maybe just ignore it—put it on the back burner? Do you hold to a scientific notion of looping reality or endless turtles all the way down, or what?

Second question: How do you see other atheists dealing with this question?

 

[prism]

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

All one first question, really: @Greg do you have an explanation for the fact of existence?

Second question: How do you see other atheists dealing with this question?

My dad would answer 'EVOLUTION', but still he was without excuse.

 

[makesends]

My dad would answer 'EVOLUTION', but still he was without excuse.

Evolution doesn't pretend to explain existence. Only the fact of current forms and fossils. It doesn't even begin to explain how there is such a thing as LIFE—it's all conjecture at this point, not part of the 'theory'. But that is off-topic. I'm asking about EXISTENCE.

 

[Greg]

do you have an explanation for the fact of existence?

If I answer while still unregenerate, could the answer possibly be without sin, or must any such answer be sin?

Well first, it wouldn't matter if I didn't have an explanation for the fact of existence. The fact that I didn't would require your Calvinist self to conclude that God did not want me to be able to explain the fact of existence. If your theology says God wanted me to be wrong about something, then you are inconsistent with your own theology to pretend that is something I should worry about. I was wrong because your god wanted me to be wrong, and your god's desire to glorify his judgmental self is more important than whether I can satisfy your curiosity. I see nothing wrong with your question, but Calvinist theology sees everything wrong with it.

Second, reasonableness on my part doesn't require that I provide answers that blow epistemologists out of the water. Reasonable requires some degree of evaluating data and drawing inferences. So even if I gave an explanation you felt was false, that would hardly prove I was unreasonable to adopt it. But you don't have the option of saying I may possibly be wrong and yet reasonable at the same time. You take Psalm 14:1 literally, and you consider Romans 1:20 to be incontestable dogma. So you are forced to take the extreme position that to be wrong, is to necessarily be unreasonable. Which means you attribute unreasonableness to every other Calvinist who disagrees with you about Van Til or eschatology or Clark's ordination.

Third, yes, my explanation for the fact of existence is as follows: I agree with Young Earth Creationists that the Big Bang is both scientifically and biblically untenable. That's where my agreement with them ends. I hold to an eternal universe model which says matter has always existed, it neither comes into existence nor goes out of existence, but merely changes configuration. I infer this because a) the more time that passes, the more stars astronomers note, which is consistent with, without demanding, that the universe has an infinite past, and b) we have no evidence that matter ever came into existence (viz. the old Christian debates about whether matter itself is eternal), and we have no evidence that matter ever goes out of existence.

Do you see no need to explain it, maybe just ignore it—put it on the back burner?

I don't see the point of "needing" to explain it. I presume that if there is an intelligent designer and he seriously wants me to know the truth about existence, it is less likely that he will say "my mysterious ways" to ancient Jewish sages in an infallible way, and then expect later generations to discern that infallible truth by solely fallible means, and more likely that he will simply cause me to know the truth about the matter. And under your Calvinism, the fact that I have what you call a "deficient" explanation for existence, requires you to conclude under WCF sec.3 that God must have wanted me to harbor such view. At that point I put my foot down and resist any foolishness that says God is, nevertheless, angry with me for harboring the exact belief he wanted me to harbor. I flatly deny any such possibility and I'm fully wiling to take my chances with the belief that God is pleased whenever I do anything he wants me to do. I say that after having read the way Calvin, Piper, Turretin, and others tried to explain away this "two contradictory wills in God" stuff.

Do you hold to a scientific notion of looping reality or endless turtles all the way down, or what?

If you know I'm unregenerate, do you expect my answer to be sinless or sinful (Romans 14:23)?

For now I hold solely to an eternal universe model, because (under your theology) God wanted me to. Nothing could possibly be more important than fulfillment of God's desires, right?

Second question: How do you see other atheists dealing with this question?

I agree with Christian author James S. Spiegel's Making Of An Atheist: How Morality Leads To Unbelief (Moody, 2010) that in many cases, it was desire to act immorally without a guilty conscience, that motivated lots of atheists come up with ways to get rid of God. Where he goes wrong is in assuming that because select cases exist, this is surely true about just any atheist, including those he knows nothing about. That's as fallacious as Paul's logic in Romans 1 where he somehow gets truths about 1st century people solely by noting what more ancient people did (!?). I did not apostatize from Christianity out of a desire to commit sins without the bother of a guilty conscience. I apostatized because I reached a point where I finally decided that the reason my academic questions aren't being answered by Calvinist apologetics and scholarship is because those concerns cannot be so answered, i.e., they were legitimate objections that rendered apostasy reasonable, even if not infallible.

I have various opinions about the various atheists who answer that question. If I think Dr. Richard Carrier does a good job of explaining existence without God, you'd have to conclude its because God wanted me to.

If Calvinism is true, then God ordained me to adopt an allegedly fallacious explanation for existence...then ordained you or somebody else to point out its defects to me...then ordained me to judge those criticisms unpersuasive...then ordained you to use that "error" to teach young Calvinists that this is just one of many ways that the world suppresses truth in unrighteousness as predicted by Paul in Romans 1...then ordained me to highlight Paul's defects and ask why anybody should have ever believed his stuff in the first place...then ordained you to remind others with a quotation of 2nd Cor. 4:4 that Satan is the god of this world...and on and on and on.

 

[makesends]

If I answer while still unregenerate, could the answer possibly be without sin, or must any such answer be sin?

That's a silly question, rhetorical or not. I do not say that the answer is sin. I say the unregenerate sins with every breath. Sins all day long. IS at enmity against God. To will to do something, changes none of that. Nothing new there.

Well first, it wouldn't matter if I didn't have an explanation for the fact of existence. The fact that I didn't would require your Calvinist self to conclude that God did not want me to be able to explain the fact of existence. If your theology says God wanted me to be wrong about something, then you are inconsistent with your own theology to pretend that is something I should worry about.

You must really have been in a fringe Calvinist congregation. That is not what Calvinism teaches.

That is very like the notion that those insisting on self-determinism pose, that if everything is decreed and predestined, then it is automatic. No need for obedience or anything else, since everything will fall out just as God intended.

No, it is not automatic. It is only sure, and purposed. Your ability (or inability) to explain only demonstrates you can (or cannot) explain. The reasons, even if they are predestined and decreed (and yes, I do say they are), still remain the same reasons as if they were not predestined.

But, in argument parlance, that is a red herring. Move on to answer the question.

I was wrong because your god wanted me to be wrong, and your god's desire to glorify his judgmental self is more important than whether I can satisfy your curiosity. I see nothing wrong with your question, but Calvinist theology sees everything wrong with it.

Second, reasonableness on my part doesn't require that I provide answers that blow epistemologists out of the water. Reasonable requires some degree of evaluating data and drawing inferences. So even if I gave an explanation you felt was false, that would hardly prove I was unreasonable to adopt it. But you don't have the option of saying I may possibly be wrong and yet reasonable at the same time. You take Psalm 14:1 literally, and you consider Romans 1:20 to be incontestable dogma. So you are forced to take the extreme position that to be wrong, is to necessarily be unreasonable. Which means you attribute unreasonableness to every other Calvinist who disagrees with you about Van Til or eschatology or Clark's ordination.

Not necessarily, Lol, just ask some others here about my self-skepticism!

Third, yes, my explanation for the fact of existence is as follows: I agree with Young Earth Creationists that the Big Bang is both scientifically and biblically untenable. That's where my agreement with them ends. I hold to an eternal universe model which says matter has always existed, it neither comes into existence nor goes out of existence, but merely changes configuration. I infer this because a) the more time that passes, the more stars astronomers note, which is consistent with, without demanding, that the universe has an infinite past, and b) we have no evidence that matter ever came into existence (viz. the old Christian debates about whether matter itself is eternal), and we have no evidence that matter ever goes out of existence.

That's kicking the can down the road. You are saying inanimate matter/force "has always existed". But you can't say why; you can't show any reasonable way it is self-existent. You claim no beginning, but you are talking about mechanical fact, not willed purpose. It operates according to principles that govern it. That is not self-existence.

WHY? HOW does it exist?

I don't see the point of "needing" to explain it. I presume that if there is an intelligent designer and he seriously wants me to know the truth about existence, it is less likely that he will say "my mysterious ways" to ancient Jewish sages in an infallible way, and then expect later generations to discern that infallible truth by solely fallible means, and more likely that he will simply cause me to know the truth about the matter. And under your Calvinism, the fact that I have what you call a "deficient" explanation for existence, requires you to conclude under WCF sec.3 that God must have wanted me to harbor such view. At that point I put my foot down and resist any foolishness that says God is, nevertheless, angry with me for harboring the exact belief he wanted me to harbor. I flatly deny any such possibility and I'm fully wiling to take my chances with the belief that God is pleased whenever I do anything he wants me to do. I say that after having read the way Calvin, Piper, Turretin, and others tried to explain away this "two contradictory wills in God" stuff.

Now you are appealing to what you take for religion. That really is beside the point. You aren't answering the question. You are excusing yourself. Truth is, you have no explanation for existence.

If you know I'm unregenerate, do you expect my answer to be sinless or sinful (Romans 14:23)?

Red herring. Non-answer.

For now I hold solely to an eternal universe model, because (under your theology) God wanted me to. Nothing could possibly be more important than fulfillment of God's desires, right?

Incomplete answer, but ok, I'll accept it that is the best you can do and still remain atheist.

My theology is irrelevant. Red Herring.

I agree with Christian author James S. Spiegel's Making Of An Atheist: How Morality Leads To Unbelief (Moody, 2010) that in many cases, it was desire to act immorally without a guilty conscience, that motivated lots of atheists come up with ways to get rid of God. Where he goes wrong is in assuming that because select cases exist, this is surely true about just any atheist, including those he knows nothing about. That's as fallacious as Paul's logic in Romans 1 where he somehow gets truths about 1st century people solely by noting what more ancient people did (!?). I did not apostatize from Christianity out of a desire to commit sins without the bother of a guilty conscience. I apostatized because I reached a point where I finally decided that the reason my academic questions aren't being answered by Calvinist apologetics and scholarship is because those concerns cannot be so answered, i.e., they were legitimate objections that rendered apostasy reasonable, even if not infallible.

So, basically, you are only an unfulfilled agnostic. You have concluded, decided, to disregard notions of God because to you, they are intellectually (not to mention emotionally) unsatisfying. But you have no satisfying explanation for existence. Rudderless.

I have various opinions about the various atheists who answer that question. If I think Dr. Richard Carrier does a good job of explaining existence without God, you'd have to conclude its because God wanted me to.

"God wanted you to" does not explain existence.

I guess you would rather I look up Carrier and pick out something that is not about Christianity or religion as such, but about the fact of existence. I didn't see anything close to that on a cursory search, but one video, that I don't have the time or inclination to listen to. What I saw of it was not quite what I'm looking for. Are you willing to condense his explanation to a cogent concise argument?

If Calvinism is true, then God ordained me to adopt an allegedly fallacious explanation for existence...then ordained you or somebody else to point out its defects to me...then ordained me to judge those criticisms unpersuasive...then ordained you to use that "error" to teach young Calvinists that this is just one of many ways that the world suppresses truth in unrighteousness as predicted by Paul in Romans 1...then ordained me to highlight Paul's defects and ask why anybody should have ever believed his stuff in the first place...then ordained you to remind others with a quotation of 2nd Cor. 4:4 that Satan is the god of this world...and on and on and on.

Red Herring. I didn't ask why you choose atheism. I asked what you do with the problem of existence. In essence, what you have told me is, "I ignore it.".

 

[Greg]

If I answer while still unregenerate, could the answer possibly be without sin, or must any such answer be sin?
That's a silly question, rhetorical or not. I do not say that the answer is sin. I say the unregenerate sins with every breath. Sins all day long. IS at enmity against God. To will to do something, changes none of that. Nothing new there.

That's not a direct answer. Please answer directly. I'm answering you in my unregenerate state, so that either guarantees, or doesn't guarantee, that my act of answering will constitute sin. Romans 14:23 attaches sinfulness to the ACT that is done without faith. So when I ask whether my act of answering you in my unregenerate state would constitute sin or not, that is a perfectly valid concern.

Greg said: Well first, it wouldn't matter if I didn't have an explanation for the fact of existence. The fact that I didn't would require your Calvinist self to conclude that God did not want me to be able to explain the fact of existence. If your theology says God wanted me to be wrong about something, then you are inconsistent with your own theology to pretend that is something I should worry about.
You must really have been in a fringe Calvinist congregation. That is not what Calvinism teaches.

Everything I said is perfectly consistent with WCF sec. 3 saying God has ordained all things whatsoever. If WCF is fringe, so be it.

That is very like the notion that those insisting on self-determinism pose, that if everything is decreed and predestined, then it is automatic. No need for obedience or anything else, since everything will fall out just as God intended.

I'm afraid you misunderstand: It doesn't matter if obedience is "needed". The fact that God's will cannot b thwarted means the "need" for obedience will be fulfilled when God wants it to be, and that "need" will be violated whenever God wants it to be.

No, it is not automatic. It is only sure, and purposed.

"automatic" is a red herring and irrelevant. My argument needs only the "sure and purposed" in order for Calvinism to function as blessed assurance to the atheist.

Your ability (or inability) to explain only demonstrates you can (or cannot) explain. The reasons, even if they are predestined and decreed (and yes, I do say they are), still remain the same reasons as if they were not predestined.

But if I'm responding the way God wants me to respond, I'm going to argue that consistent Calvinism prioritizes anything God wants, over anything else like accuracy. Yes, the Calvinist churches I attended made the same arguments you are making just now, but I found this to be a case of their trying to have their cake and eat it too. In other words, I found that the way Arminians typically criticize certain aspects of Calvinism has great merit. And only because God wanted me to.

Greg: You take Psalm 14:1 literally, and you consider Romans 1:20 to be incontestable dogma. So you are forced to take the extreme position that to be wrong, is to necessarily be unreasonable. Which means you attribute unreasonableness to every other Calvinist who disagrees with you about Van Til or eschatology or Clark's ordination.
Not necessarily, Lol, just ask some others here about my self-skepticism!

If you harbor self-skepticism, that it was error on my part to presume you were consistent with your own Calvinism.

Greg said: I hold to an eternal universe model which says matter has always existed, it neither comes into existence nor goes out of existence, but merely changes configuration. I infer this because a) the more time that passes, the more stars astronomers note, which is consistent with, without demanding, that the universe has an infinite past, and b) we have no evidence that matter ever came into existence (viz. the old Christian debates about whether matter itself is eternal), and we have no evidence that matter ever goes out of existence.
That's kicking the can down the road. You are saying inanimate matter/force "has always existed". But you can't say why;

"why" something exists logically implies a cause. That's why if somebody asks you why something you think is eternal exists (e.g., "why does God exists"), you "correct" them by noting that a thing that is truly of infinite duration, is exempt from the question of "why" it exists. The eternal universe model may be wrong, but it is not logically subject to the "why", because there was never any point of origin for it in the first place.

you can't show any reasonable way it is self-existent.

Derived existence allows to ask the "way" of it, because there was a causal mechanism behind it. But "self-existence", being fundamentally opposite to derived existence, just "is", there is no "way", except to point to how it appears to those who are viewing it. Self-existence, if true, could be nothing less than axiomatic.

You claim no beginning, but you are talking about mechanical fact, not willed purpose. It operates according to principles that govern it. That is not self-existence.

If you insist that "self existence" requires an intelligent will, then I don't claim the universe is "self-existent", that's your own way of characterizing the eternal universe model. If you didn't commit the fallacy of asking "why" the infinite universe exists, you wouldn't have opened the door to these additional misunderstandings.

WHY? HOW does it exist?

"how" is legitimate to ask of things that have derived existence, but because self-existence (as you wish to label the eternal universe model) is fundamentally opposite, it appears that the "how" question becomes illegitimate.

Greg said:
I don't see the point of "needing" to explain it. I presume that if there is an intelligent designer and he seriously wants me to know the truth about existence, it is less likely that he will say "my mysterious ways" to ancient Jewish sages in an infallible way, and then expect later generations to discern that infallible truth by solely fallible means, and more likely that he will simply cause me to know the truth about the matter. And under your Calvinism, the fact that I have what you call a "deficient" explanation for existence, requires you to conclude under WCF sec.3 that God must have wanted me to harbor such view. At that point I put my foot down and resist any foolishness that says God is, nevertheless, angry with me for harboring the exact belief he wanted me to harbor. I flatly deny any such possibility and I'm fully wiling to take my chances with the belief that God is pleased whenever I do anything he wants me to do. I say that after having read the way Calvin, Piper, Turretin, and others tried to explain away this "two contradictory wills in God" stuff.

Now you are appealing to what you take for religion. That really is beside the point. You aren't answering the question. You are excusing yourself. Truth is, you have no explanation for existence.

You don't have the luxury of pretending to believe that core components of Calvinism which purport to dictate the ultimate reason things turn out the way they do, is "beside the point". You believe your God wanted me to hold these "deficient" views, and yet you continue to trivialize that divine will by persistently pointing out that my views lack merit. God getting what God wants is all that matters, and Calvinists who think they can find legitimate significance in anything less, are not being consistent with their Calvinism.

Greg said:
If you know I'm unregenerate, do you expect my answer to be sinless or sinful (Romans 14:23)?
Red herring. Non-answer.

Yes, because I have biblical justification to complain that you are asking me to sin when you ask me to respond to a question.

My theology is irrelevant. Red Herring.

I'm sorry you think your Calvinist theology fails to impose its foundational significance upon everything conceivable. Other Calvinsts would allege that God's obtaining his own goals is more important than whether some response constituted a logical fallacy.

Greg said: I agree with Christian author James S. Spiegel's Making Of An Atheist: How Morality Leads To Unbelief (Moody, 2010) that in many cases, it was desire to act immorally without a guilty conscience, that motivated lots of atheists come up with ways to get rid of God. Where he goes wrong is in assuming that because select cases exist, this is surely true about just any atheist, including those he knows nothing about. That's as fallacious as Paul's logic in Romans 1 where he somehow gets truths about 1st century people solely by noting what more ancient people did (!?). I did not apostatize from Christianity out of a desire to commit sins without the bother of a guilty conscience. I apostatized because I reached a point where I finally decided that the reason my academic questions aren't being answered by Calvinist apologetics and scholarship is because those concerns cannot be so answered, i.e., they were legitimate objections that rendered apostasy reasonable, even if not infallible.
So, basically, you are only an unfulfilled agnostic.

No, you are using "basically" to steer around my relevant remarks to draw a false conclusion. I did not draw the conclusion that there are theological mysteries that remain unexplained. I drew the conclusion that the reason Calvinist apologetics and scholarship cannot answer my academic concerns is because biblical theology was entirely false.

You have concluded, decided, to disregard notions of God because to you, they are intellectually (not to mention emotionally) unsatisfying.

Why are you throwing "emotionally" into it? I did not express or imply that emotion had anything to do with my deconversion. But I could throw the same criticism back at you and your church: do you affirm or deny the salvation of Christians whose acceptance of Jesus involved crying? Are you entirely sure that an emotional reason is always an insufficient reason, as you obviously intended to imply?

But you have no satisfying explanation for existence. Rudderless.

Your theology does not permit you any conclusion about that except "because God infallibly ordained that he be rudderless". Your quickness to distance yourself from the consequences of your own theology is noted. God's ordained decree is all that and a bag of chips on Sunday Morning...but does not carry logically necessary ramifications about why atheists do the things that they do. Got it.

Greg said:
I have various opinions about the various atheists who answer that question. If I think Dr. Richard Carrier does a good job of explaining existence without God, you'd have to conclude its because God wanted me to.
"God wanted you to" does not explain existence.

I reasonably view Hell as a false alarm, so I care about a presuppositionalist telling me I'm rudderless, about as much as I care about an Arminian who says my denial of libertarian freewill leaves me rudderless. I lose sleep over none of it.

I guess you would rather I look up Carrier and pick out something that is not about Christianity or religion as such, but about the fact of existence.

Yes, sometimes I desire to do something that is not about Christianity.

I didn't see anything close to that on a cursory search, but one video, that I don't have the time or inclination to listen to. What I saw of it was not quite what I'm looking for. Are you willing to condense his explanation to a cogent concise argument?

No. And you are seeing more significance to my cite to Carrier than was ever intended.

Greg said:
If Calvinism is true, then God ordained me to adopt an allegedly fallacious explanation for existence...then ordained you or somebody else to point out its defects to me...then ordained me to judge those criticisms unpersuasive...then ordained you to use that "error" to teach young Calvinists that this is just one of many ways that the world suppresses truth in unrighteousness as predicted by Paul in Romans 1...then ordained me to highlight Paul's defects and ask why anybody should have ever believed his stuff in the first place...then ordained you to remind others with a quotation of 2nd Cor. 4:4 that Satan is the god of this world...and on and on and on.
Red Herring. I didn't ask why you choose atheism.

Again, you blaspheme your own theology by pretending God's absolute sovereignty over my alleged stupidity is a red herring or "distraction" argument, when in fact under your theology, God's sovereignty is more central to my alleged stupidity than even I am. If your theology tells you why I chose atheism, you should consider that your authoritative answer, instead of pretending that you are open to a position that your theology clearly forbids you from being open to.

I asked what you do with the problem of existence. In essence, what you have told me is, "I ignore it.".

what you call "in essence" is cover for a mischaracterization. "eternal universe" is not "ignore it". "I agree with other Christians that the Big Bang is unbiblical and unscientific" is not "ignore it". "Your God must have wanted me to be this allegedly stupid" is not "ignore it".

 

[makesends]

My answer to all this copy-paste is at the bottom of the page.

.

If I answer while still unregenerate, could the answer possibly be without sin, or must any such answer be sin?
That's a silly question, rhetorical or not. I do not say that the answer is sin. I say the unregenerate sins with every breath. Sins all day long. IS at enmity against God. To will to do something, changes none of that. Nothing new there.

That's not a direct answer. Please answer directly. I'm answering you in my unregenerate state, so that either guarantees, or doesn't guarantee, that my act of answering will constitute sin. Romans 14:23 attaches sinfulness to the ACT that is done without faith. So when I ask whether my act of answering you in my unregenerate state would constitute sin or not, that is a perfectly valid concern.

Greg said: Well first, it wouldn't matter if I didn't have an explanation for the fact of existence. The fact that I didn't would require your Calvinist self to conclude that God did not want me to be able to explain the fact of existence. If your theology says God wanted me to be wrong about something, then you are inconsistent with your own theology to pretend that is something I should worry about.
You must really have been in a fringe Calvinist congregation. That is not what Calvinism teaches.

Everything I said is perfectly consistent with WCF sec. 3 saying God has ordained all things whatsoever. If WCF is fringe, so be it.

That is very like the notion that those insisting on self-determinism pose, that if everything is decreed and predestined, then it is automatic. No need for obedience or anything else, since everything will fall out just as God intended.

I'm afraid you misunderstand: It doesn't matter if obedience is "needed". The fact that God's will cannot b thwarted means the "need" for obedience will be fulfilled when God wants it to be, and that "need" will be violated whenever God wants it to be.

No, it is not automatic. It is only sure, and purposed.

"automatic" is a red herring and irrelevant. My argument needs only the "sure and purposed" in order for Calvinism to function as blessed assurance to the atheist.

Your ability (or inability) to explain only demonstrates you can (or cannot) explain. The reasons, even if they are predestined and decreed (and yes, I do say they are), still remain the same reasons as if they were not predestined.

But if I'm responding the way God wants me to respond, I'm going to argue that consistent Calvinism prioritizes anything God wants, over anything else like accuracy. Yes, the Calvinist churches I attended made the same arguments you are making just now, but I found this to be a case of their trying to have their cake and eat it too. In other words, I found that the way Arminians typically criticize certain aspects of Calvinism has great merit. And only because God wanted me to.

Greg: You take Psalm 14:1 literally, and you consider Romans 1:20 to be incontestable dogma. So you are forced to take the extreme position that to be wrong, is to necessarily be unreasonable. Which means you attribute unreasonableness to every other Calvinist who disagrees with you about Van Til or eschatology or Clark's ordination.
Not necessarily, Lol, just ask some others here about my self-skepticism!

If you harbor self-skepticism, that it was error on my part to presume you were consistent with your own Calvinism.

Greg said: I hold to an eternal universe model which says matter has always existed, it neither comes into existence nor goes out of existence, but merely changes configuration. I infer this because a) the more time that passes, the more stars astronomers note, which is consistent with, without demanding, that the universe has an infinite past, and b) we have no evidence that matter ever came into existence (viz. the old Christian debates about whether matter itself is eternal), and we have no evidence that matter ever goes out of existence.
That's kicking the can down the road. You are saying inanimate matter/force "has always existed". But you can't say why;

"why" something exists logically implies a cause. That's why if somebody asks you why something you think is eternal exists (e.g., "why does God exists"), you "correct" them by noting that a thing that is truly of infinite duration, is exempt from the question of "why" it exists. The eternal universe model may be wrong, but it is not logically subject to the "why", because there was never any point of origin for it in the first place.

you can't show any reasonable way it is self-existent.

Derived existence allows to ask the "way" of it, because there was a causal mechanism behind it. But "self-existence", being fundamentally opposite to derived existence, just "is", there is no "way", except to point to how it appears to those who are viewing it. Self-existence, if true, could be nothing less than axiomatic.

You claim no beginning, but you are talking about mechanical fact, not willed purpose. It operates according to principles that govern it. That is not self-existence.

If you insist that "self existence" requires an intelligent will, then I don't claim the universe is "self-existent", that's your own way of characterizing the eternal universe model. If you didn't commit the fallacy of asking "why" the infinite universe exists, you wouldn't have opened the door to these additional misunderstandings.

WHY? HOW does it exist?

"how" is legitimate to ask of things that have derived existence, but because self-existence (as you wish to label the eternal universe model) is fundamentally opposite, it appears that the "how" question becomes illegitimate.

Greg said:
I don't see the point of "needing" to explain it. I presume that if there is an intelligent designer and he seriously wants me to know the truth about existence, it is less likely that he will say "my mysterious ways" to ancient Jewish sages in an infallible way, and then expect later generations to discern that infallible truth by solely fallible means, and more likely that he will simply cause me to know the truth about the matter. And under your Calvinism, the fact that I have what you call a "deficient" explanation for existence, requires you to conclude under WCF sec.3 that God must have wanted me to harbor such view. At that point I put my foot down and resist any foolishness that says God is, nevertheless, angry with me for harboring the exact belief he wanted me to harbor. I flatly deny any such possibility and I'm fully wiling to take my chances with the belief that God is pleased whenever I do anything he wants me to do. I say that after having read the way Calvin, Piper, Turretin, and others tried to explain away this "two contradictory wills in God" stuff.

Now you are appealing to what you take for religion. That really is beside the point. You aren't answering the question. You are excusing yourself. Truth is, you have no explanation for existence.

You don't have the luxury of pretending to believe that core components of Calvinism which purport to dictate the ultimate reason things turn out the way they do, is "beside the point". You believe your God wanted me to hold these "deficient" views, and yet you continue to trivialize that divine will by persistently pointing out that my views lack merit. God getting what God wants is all that matters, and Calvinists who think they can find legitimate significance in anything less, are not being consistent with their Calvinism.

Greg said:
If you know I'm unregenerate, do you expect my answer to be sinless or sinful (Romans 14:23)?
Red herring. Non-answer.

Yes, because I have biblical justification to complain that you are asking me to sin when you ask me to respond to a question.

My theology is irrelevant. Red Herring.

I'm sorry you think your Calvinist theology fails to impose its foundational significance upon everything conceivable. Other Calvinsts would allege that God's obtaining his own goals is more important than whether some response constituted a logical fallacy.

Greg said: I agree with Christian author James S. Spiegel's Making Of An Atheist: How Morality Leads To Unbelief (Moody, 2010) that in many cases, it was desire to act immorally without a guilty conscience, that motivated lots of atheists come up with ways to get rid of God. Where he goes wrong is in assuming that because select cases exist, this is surely true about just any atheist, including those he knows nothing about. That's as fallacious as Paul's logic in Romans 1 where he somehow gets truths about 1st century people solely by noting what more ancient people did (!?). I did not apostatize from Christianity out of a desire to commit sins without the bother of a guilty conscience. I apostatized because I reached a point where I finally decided that the reason my academic questions aren't being answered by Calvinist apologetics and scholarship is because those concerns cannot be so answered, i.e., they were legitimate objections that rendered apostasy reasonable, even if not infallible.
So, basically, you are only an unfulfilled agnostic.

No, you are using "basically" to steer around my relevant remarks to draw a false conclusion. I did not draw the conclusion that there are theological mysteries that remain unexplained. I drew the conclusion that the reason Calvinist apologetics and scholarship cannot answer my academic concerns is because biblical theology was entirely false.


Again, you blaspheme your own theology by pretending God's absolute sovereignty over my alleged stupidity is a red herring or "distraction" argument, when in fact under your theology, God's sovereignty is more central to my alleged stupidity than even I am. If your theology tells you why I chose atheism, you should consider that your authoritative answer, instead of pretending that you are open to a position that your theology clearly forbids you from being open to.

I asked what you do with the problem of existence. In essence, what you have told me is, "I ignore it.".

what you call "in essence" is cover for a mischaracterization. "eternal universe" is not "ignore it". "I agree with other Christians that the Big Bang is unbiblical and unscientific" is not "ignore it". "Your God must have wanted me to be this allegedly stupid" is not "ignore it".

It is curious to me, both your visceral condemnation of what you perceive of Calvinism / Christianity, and your perception / definition of what Calvinism is. You draw a conclusion (which you refuse to abandon in spite of the several corrections directed at you) no doubt based on some truths to the exclusion of others, and then you sling it around like a mace in battle, as though it actually carries any weight.

The question is not whether Christianity is even valid, here. The question is, "How do you explain existence?". You told me how you suppose to explain it. I showed that it does not explain it, but only kicks causation down the road a little. Your answers were to attack my Christianity/Calvinism. (I don't even consider myself a Calvinist, nor Reformed, but I am very Calvinistic.) That has little to do with the validity of your answer.

I'm not going to take the time to answer you above line by line. It is already run way too long, on particularly this one tangent, this one [apparent] mission upon which you seem to have embarked, to try to destroy what you scorn. My purpose here was genuinely to find what you think about origins, and your answer fell short of what I consider good reason. So my conclusion was something along the lines of, "You don't want to reason anymore on it." Your repeated red herring seems to prove me right.

I do appreciate you mentioning at least one other atheist, in answer to my question of what do they posit as explanation for existence. It would have been good if you had summarized his theory/thinking on the issue.

Ha! It won't even send! Too many characters. I'll cut some from the middle of it.

 

[Greg]

It is curious to me, both your visceral condemnation of what you perceive of Calvinism / Christianity, and your perception / definition of what Calvinism is.

If I'm not responding to genuine Calvinism, blame it on the Calvinists who have split into various denominations and disagree with each other about what exactly it is and isn't.

You draw a conclusion (which you refuse to abandon in spite of the several corrections directed at you) no doubt based on some truths to the exclusion of others, and then you sling it around like a mace in battle, as though it actually carries any weight.

Ok.

The question is not whether Christianity is even valid, here. The question is, "How do you explain existence?". You told me how you suppose to explain it. I showed that it does not explain it, but only kicks causation down the road a little. Your answers were to attack my Christianity/Calvinism. (I don't even consider myself a Calvinist, nor Reformed, but I am very Calvinistic.) That has little to do with the validity of your answer.

If I gave you an insufficient answer, its because your "very Calvinistic" god must have wanted me to. I did not "attack" anything you believed. I simply used one bit of your theology to show that your theology doesn't allow you to derive significance from the fact that some non-Christian cannot explain the universe to your satisfaction. Your God's need to glorify himself through my allegedly insufficient answers is more important to him, apparently, than is the sufficiency of my answers.
Mod edit: Strike through by mod to identify the offense. The fact that you are an atheist does not give you leeway to speak of God in this manner. It misrepresents Calvinism and the posters beliefs. Rule 2.2 violation.

I'm not going to take the time to answer you above line by line. It is already run way too long, on particularly this one tangent, this one [apparent] mission upon which you seem to have embarked, to try to destroy what you scorn.

Read my bio. Not here to destroy anything...except the fundamentalist belief that I must be unreasonable to reject the gospel. That's the one thing I'm definitely here to destroy.

My purpose here was genuinely to find what you think about origins, and your answer fell short of what I consider good reason.

Because a) your God ordained you to find the answer to lack good reason, and b) if my answer was indeed lacking, it was because your God ordained that it be so.
Violation of rule 2.2

So my conclusion was something along the lines of, "You don't want to reason anymore on it." Your repeated

red herring seems to prove me right.

What you call a red herring, I call the "assuming arguendo". You constantly harp about how I can't explain something, and I have to keep reminding you that my conformity to your God's will is more important than whether I got something right. Your downplaying the ramifications of your own theology is noteworthy. The fact that you don't consider yourself Calvinist or Reformed, and yet you still say you are "very Calvinistic" might explain why you fallaciously tell your god's eternal decrees to take a back seat and quit trying to impose themselves on earthly situations. Violation of all points of rule 2.2 I'm gonna hold your feet to the fire that YOU lit when you adopted "very Calvinistic" beliefs. But it would help things tremendously if you specified which doctrinal points of Calvinism you deny, which cause you to refrain from adopting full Calvinism. You might view the eternal decrees of God very differently from WCF sec. 3, in which case yes, I'd have to start answering you in a different way.

I do appreciate you mentioning at least one other atheist, in answer to my question of what do they posit as explanation for existence. It would have been good if you had summarized his theory/thinking on the issue.

I get in the way of my own goal when I rely on other atheists. I'm here to show that reasonableness in rejecting the gospel can be achieved even assuming the gospel is ultimately true.

 

[makesends]

If I'm not responding to genuine Calvinism, blame it on the Calvinists who have split into various denominations and disagree with each other about what exactly it is and isn't.

Off-topic. The low-hanging fruit is tempting, though.

Ok.



If I gave you an insufficient answer, its because your "very Calvinistic" god must have wanted me to. I did not "attack" anything you believed. I simply used one bit of your theology to show that your theology doesn't allow you to derive significance from the fact that some non-Christian cannot explain the universe to your satisfaction. Your God's need to glorify himself through my allegedly insufficient answers is more important to him, apparently, than is the sufficiency of my answers.

Off-topic

Read my bio. Not here to destroy anything...except the fundamentalist belief that I must be unreasonable to reject the gospel. That's the one thing I'm definitely here to destroy.



Because a) your God ordained you to find the answer to lack good reason, and b) if my answer was indeed lacking, it was because your God ordained that it be so.



What you call a red herring, I call the "assuming arguendo". You constantly harp about how I can't explain something, and I have to keep reminding you that my conformity to your God's will is more important than whether I got something right.

Why? —that is off-topic!

Your downplaying the ramifications of your own theology is noteworthy. The fact that you don't consider yourself Calvinist or Reformed, and yet you still say you are "very Calvinistic" might explain why you fallaciously tell your god's eternal decrees to take a back seat and quit trying to impose themselves on earthly situations. I'm gonna hold your feet to the fire that YOU lit when you adopted "very Calvinistic" beliefs. But it would help things tremendously if you specified which doctrinal points of Calvinism you deny, which cause you to refrain from adopting full Calvinism. You might view the eternal decrees of God very differently from WCF sec. 3, in which case yes, I'd have to start answering you in a different way.

You are ACCUSING me of trying to stay on topic?? —My bad. I repent in dust and ashes.

I get in the way of my own goal when I rely on other atheists. I'm here to show that reasonableness in rejecting the gospel can be achieved even assuming the gospel is ultimately true.

I wasn't asking you to rely on anyone else. I just wanted a synopsis or something, presenting how they deal with it, hoping that you knew better than I of some reasonable explanation common to them, or at least different explanations from some of them. I assumed you knew better than I what they thought.

 

[Arial]

Romans 14:23 attaches sinfulness to the ACT that is done without faith. So when I ask whether my act of answering you in my unregenerate state would constitute sin or not, that is a perfectly valid concern.

That isn't what Romans 14:23 is doing. It was a specific act (eating meat sacrificed to idols) of one who did have saving faith (not an unregenerate). The Jewish OC law prohibited such a practice. Jews new to Christianity and as yet immature in their faith in particular would have difficulty jettisoning that prohibition. And still considering it sinful, not eat meat sacrificed to idols. Those more mature recognize that eating or not eating added nothing to salvation and took nothing away. If they judged the less mature and flaunted there eating of meat from the markets which may or may not have been sacrificed to idols, the immature may give in and do what he truly thought was a sin while still believing it was a sin. In which case that would be sin. Why? Not because it really was but because his faith in immaturity thought it was sin. It was not of faith but purely in order to not be judged by others.

You have been told that twice in this argument so to continue using it incorrectly only weakens your own position as being unreasonable in your arguments.

 

[Arial]

Read my bio. Not here to destroy anything...except the fundamentalist belief that I must be unreasonable to reject the gospel. That's the one thing I'm definitely here to destroy.

You have illustrated that it is unreasonable by only supporting your position with unreasonable arguments.,

 

[Greg]

I wasn't asking you to rely on anyone else. I just wanted a synopsis or something, presenting how they deal with it, hoping that you knew better than I of some reasonable explanation common to them, or at least different explanations from some of them. I assumed you knew better than I what they thought.

Your assumption is correct. You fallaciously assume that if I Do know better, then it should be automatic I'll just fulfill any requests to give you various different explanations from some atheists. Nope. I consider that outside the purpose stated in my bio. Even if you don't have Google.

 

[Greg]

That isn't what Romans 14:23 is doing. It was a specific act (eating meat sacrificed to idols) of one who did have saving faith (not an unregenerate). The Jewish OC law prohibited such a practice. Jews new to Christianity and as yet immature in their faith in particular would have difficulty jettisoning that prohibition. And still considering it sinful, not eat meat sacrificed to idols. Those more mature recognize that eating or not eating added nothing to salvation and took nothing away. If they judged the less mature and flaunted there eating of meat from the markets which may or may not have been sacrificed to idols, the immature may give in and do what he truly thought was a sin while still believing it was a sin. In which case that would be sin. Why? Not because it really was but because his faith in immaturity thought it was sin. It was not of faith but purely in order to not be judged by others.

You have been told that twice in this argument so to continue using it incorrectly only weakens your own position as being unreasonable in your arguments.

then apparently you missed what I posted to another thread. Here it is:

But I have a quotation from Trinitarian inerrantist bible scholar R. H. Mounce, who denies that the key phrase there (whatsoever is not of faith is sin) is limited to the context. And unfortunately for you and the others here, he agrees with me that the "whatsoever" is ANY act done without faith:

The final clause of v. 23 (“Everything that does not come from faith is sin”) is applicable on a much wider scale than the immediate context.132 Whatever is done without the conviction that God has approved it is by definition sin.133 God has called us to a life of faith. Trust is the willingness to put all of life before God for his approval. Any doubt concerning an action automatically removes that action from the category of that which is acceptable.
Mounce, R. H. (2001, c1995). Vol. 27: Romans (electronic ed.). Logos Library System;
The New American Commentary (Page 258). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

His phrases "an action" and "that action" are purposefully generalized and non-specific. There are no special actions that even unbelievers can do apart from sin.

Better, Mounce correctly keeps this in the context of actions that Christians do. Yes, apparently it is possible for a Christian's act to be sin, if they did it without faith. If that is true, it follows most inescapably that the unbeliever, faithless in all they do by definition, sins in literally everything they do.... or in "every breath you take" as one other Calvinist previously told me. I've amassed 5 pages of quotations from inerrantist Trinitarian Christian scholars who agree with Mounce.

I'm reasonable, therefore, to believe that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" is NOT limited to the context in which it happened to be employed, but represents a general truth applicable to literally everything done by anybody lacking faith. Thus "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" reasonably means "any act done by any man is sin if done without faith". The same is taught in Hebrews 11:6. I don't have faith, so if I cook dinner for the kids, this cannot possibly fall into the "please god" category, therefore, the unregenerate man's act of cooking dinner for the kids can only fall into the only other logically possible category: "doesn't please god", i.e., it is a sin for an unregenerate man to cook dinner for his kids, because such a man does so apart from faith.

 

[makesends]

Arial said:
That isn't what Romans 14:23 is doing. It was a specific act (eating meat sacrificed to idols) of one who did have saving faith (not an unregenerate). The Jewish OC law prohibited such a practice. Jews new to Christianity and as yet immature in their faith in particular would have difficulty jettisoning that prohibition. And still considering it sinful, not eat meat sacrificed to idols. Those more mature recognize that eating or not eating added nothing to salvation and took nothing away. If they judged the less mature and flaunted there eating of meat from the markets which may or may not have been sacrificed to idols, the immature may give in and do what he truly thought was a sin while still believing it was a sin. In which case that would be sin. Why? Not because it really was but because his faith in immaturity thought it was sin. It was not of faith but purely in order to not be judged by others.

You have been told that twice in this argument so to continue using it incorrectly only weakens your own position as being unreasonable in your arguments.

then apparently you missed what I posted to another thread. Here it is:

But I have a quotation from Trinitarian inerrantist bible scholar R. H. Mounce, who denies that the key phrase there (whatsoever is not of faith is sin) is limited to the context. And unfortunately for you and the others here, he agrees with me that the "whatsoever" is ANY act done without faith:

Unfortunately for your point, even if @Arial is not right, here, it is irrelevant to the validity of your thesis. And worse, your thesis is irrelevant to the OP.

But to this tangent, you are taking HER out of context. I don't see her disagreeing that it doesn't apply elsewhere, but that it is, in context, about the specific matter of food offered to idols, and the force of conscience in decision-making. The consideration and gentleness of self toward a brother.

I take her to be saying that YOU are making a use of it, extrapolating it in a direction it is not intended to go, ignoring the context and even the uses of the principle in other contexts.

His phrases "an action" and "that action" are purposefully generalized and non-specific. There are no special actions that even unbelievers can do apart from sin.

Better, Mounce correctly keeps this in the context of actions that Christians do. Yes, apparently it is possible for a Christian's act to be sin, if they did it without faith. If that is true, it follows most inescapably that the unbeliever, faithless in all they do by definition, sins in literally everything they do.... or in "every breath you take" as one other Calvinist previously told me. I've amassed 5 pages of quotations from inerrantist Trinitarian Christian scholars who agree with Mounce.

Argumentum ad Populum / Appeal to Authority on a subject irrelevant to both your thesis and, particularly, to the subject of the OP.

I'm reasonable, therefore, to believe that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" is NOT limited to the context in which it happened to be employed, but represents a general truth applicable to literally everything done by anybody lacking faith. Thus "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" reasonably means "any act done by any man is sin if done without faith". The same is taught in Hebrews 11:6. I don't have faith, so if I cook dinner for the kids, this cannot possibly fall into the "please god" category, therefore, the unregenerate man's act of cooking dinner for the kids can only fall into the only other logically possible category: "doesn't please god", i.e., it is a sin for an unregenerate man to cook dinner for his kids, because such a man does so apart from faith.

This is your last warning here on this thread without penalty. Further posts by you on this tack will be deleted. You will not hijack this thread for your purposes. We have put up with you out of a sincere desire to understand your point-of-view and to, hopefully, give you related information, too—to discuss arguments concerning the OP of each thread. Drop it; you are violating Rules 2.2, 3.2, 4.3, 4.7.

 

[Arial]

But I have a quotation from Trinitarian inerrantist bible scholar R. H. Mounce, who denies that the key phrase there (whatsoever is not of faith is sin) is limited to the context. And unfortunately for you and the others here, he agrees with me that the "whatsoever" is ANY act done without faith:

then apparently you missed what I posted to another thread. Here it is:

But I have a quotation from Trinitarian inerrantist bible scholar R. H. Mounce, who denies that the key phrase there (whatsoever is not of faith is sin) is limited to the context. And unfortunately for you and the others here, he agrees with me that the "whatsoever" is ANY act done without faith:

I did miss it but that does not change my exegesis of the passage. You are not understanding what Mounce is saying. Let me put it back up.




The final clause of v. 23 (“Everything that does not come from faith is sin”) is applicable on a much wider scale than the immediate context.132 Whatever is done without the conviction that God has approved it is by definition sin.133 God has called us to a life of faith. Trust is the willingness to put all of life before God for his approval. Any doubt concerning an action automatically removes that action from the category of that which is acceptable.
Mounce, R. H. (2001, c1995). Vol. 27: Romans (electronic ed.). Logos Library System;
The New American Commentary (Page 258). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

He is saying that it does not apply only to the things specified in the context but that any action the believer thinks might not be acceptable in the sight of God, but does it anyway is doing what is not acceptable because we do it apart from our faith. And note, he said "not acceptable" rather than "sin." And though it may seem like he is equivocating a bit to soften it, I don't believe he is. Paul was referring to a specific thing that some thought was a sin and isn't a sin. So, the context remains instead of removing it entirely as you do. Munch is simply extending it in a moral, conscience, way. Bottom line---Mounce was not agreeing with you. In my opinion his statement verges on the legalistic or at least could tend to make some bend that way.

But all that aside, you are appealing to an authority that you don't prove as an authority, and you are inconsistent to do so. Calvin himself was a Trinitarian scholar, but you don't accept his words as truth.

His phrases "an action" and "that action" are purposefully generalized and non-specific. There are no special actions that even unbelievers can do apart from sin.

He does that because Paul was speaking of a specific action --- (see above)

Better, Mounce correctly keeps this in the context of actions that Christians do. Yes, apparently it is possible for a Christian's act to be sin, if they did it without faith.

Of course, Christians still sin. We are still fallen and in a fallen world. The difference between the Christian sinning and the unbeliever sinning is that the sins of the Christian---those in Christ through faith---have been paid for on the cross by Jesus substituting himself in their place. Our sins counted as though they were his own and conversely his righteousness counted as though it were that of the believer. A person is not saved by their own righteousness but the righteousness of Christ.

If a Christian sins it is sin and it is even though they have faith. The sin does not remove the faith. Paul was speaking about something a believer thought was a sin but wasn't a sin.

If that is true, it follows most inescapably that the unbeliever, faithless in all they do by definition, sins in literally everything they do.... or in "every breath you take" as one other Calvinist previously told me. I've amassed 5 pages of quotations from inerrantist Trinitarian Christian scholars who agree with Mounce.

How many times must this be gone over with by everyone before you get it. Not everything they do is a sin. Every morally right and good thing they do does not remove the sinful motive behind it that comes from being a sinner. They still do not love God. They still do not want to submit to the one who created them to reflect his moral uprightness in all they do. And he is not a sinner because he sins, he sins because he is a sinner.

I'm reasonable, therefore, to believe that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" is NOT limited to the context in which it happened to be employed, but represents a general truth applicable to literally everything done by anybody lacking faith.

Not really because Paul was speaking to those who had faith and relating his comments to them. What he was NOT doing is having a discussion on the fallenness of man and the sinful nature. Which is what you are applying it to. And it is doubly unreasonable for you to do that after you have had the meaning of that passage exegeted for you on a number of occasions---even by Mounce.

The same is taught in Hebrews 11:6. I don't have faith, so if I cook dinner for the kids, this cannot possibly fall into the "please god" category, therefore, the unregenerate man's act of cooking dinner for the kids can only fall into the only other logically possible category: "doesn't please god", i.e., it is a sin for an unregenerate man to cook dinner for his kids, because such a man does so apart from faith.

You have turned the passage into if it doesn't please God then it is sin. That is a false dichotomy. In any of the examples given of men with faith referring to cooking dinner for the kids or jumpstarting the dead battery of a stranger stranded on the road. Nope. They were talking about believing God and trusting him no matter what circumstances they faced.

therefore, the unregenerate man's act of cooking dinner for the kids can only fall into the only other logically possible category: "doesn't please god", i.e., it is a sin for an unregenerate man to cook dinner for his kids, because such a man does so apart from faith.

It is not the only other possible logical category and to think so is illogical. Witnesses by the fact that it is a logical fallacy itself.

 

[Arial]

I will not


Well your comment :



lacks force, because as you well know, any TTrinitarian Arminian could hurl the same insult to your intelligence back at you, e.g., "And it is doubly unreasonable for you use Romans 8:7 to support the first point of Calvinism after you have had the meaning of that passage exegeted for you on a number of occasions---even by Craig Keener".

And I've decided that I don't like the way you "moderate", so unless you delete it, my most recent thread will be my last.

Well, hey then, if you prefer a different moderator I will back off from moderating you and leave it to everyone else. Makes no difference to me. Most sites one doesn't get to choose their moderator or how moderation is done. Personally, I am more interested in the exchanges you will have with @John Bauer when he gets time than either moderating you or communicating with you.

 

[Arial]

My reply presumed your moderation was mandatory. I was wrong. Ok, if you need not moderate here, then what is your response to my argument that Arminians can exude the same type of confident language you do when you assure me that I'm not paying attention, and yet we both know you wouldn't find such Arminian zinger the least bit worrisome? They've also been telling Calvinists for 500 years that Calvinism is unbiblical. Must we assume the Calvinists simply aren't listening?

Here you are moving the conversation from Atheist/Calvinist debate to A'ist Christian/ C'ist Christian debate. So, my answer will reflect the change of category. Just keep that in mind. If you have brought this up in a different post to me, I am not aware of that either. The language did not make that clear. I don't recall saying you weren't paying attention. My response here will be only to what is above.

To what I marked in bold I can only surmise you have never seen any of my exchanges with A'ists if you think that is true. I hold there feet to the fire about there misuse of scriptures, and do with them just as I did with you. Take what they have isolated from all context to prove their position, exegete it within its context, making sure it contradicts nothing else on the same subject in the Bible. And lo and behold, it is not saying at all what they claim it is saying. What do they do? Act like I never did that and keep using the Scripture wrong over and over and they repeat, repeat themselves. But they never ever actually demonstrate whatever anti-Calvinist point they are making is, with Scripture. They never even bother to refute what I have said except my repeating their unsupported interpretation or claim.

What eventually happens every single time? Either they quietly disappear or they descend into insult and abandon the topic altogether in exchange for personal attacks, then blame the moderators for being the reason they are leaving forever. As though they should be able to break the rules at will.

I am not joking. It is reliable as clockwork.

Just a note on this site. It is not like other sites you may have been on. It is not going to allow its association with Christianity and Reformed to be slandered by permitting unmoderated rules violations and becoming nothing but a devil's playground for Christians badly in need of sanctification in Christian ethics. We actually moderate and consider the rules we have established to be in place for a reason.

They've also been telling Calvinists for 500 years that Calvinism is unbiblical. Must we assume the Calvinists simply aren't listening?

They hear every word said. Most of it comes from a place of not really understanding Reformed theology which btw is much more than TULIP and is inaccurately dubbed simply Calvinism. They correct those misunderstandings and that is what the A'ist ignores. They continue to state their opinion of Reformed theology as being what Reformed theology is. Arminianism, Pelagianism, and semi-Pelagianism, all cousins of different eras. were all condemned by the church long before the Protestant Reformation. The Scripture has to be fractured in a way that it is no longer internally consistent with itself in order to come against Reformed.

And there is something to be said about the fact that things that are not biblically true can never be proven by the Scripture. The arguments A'ists make against Reformed never have been, not in any debate I have been in or observed.