In our previous article
on atheism we spoke of the atheists' arguments with regard to
experiences. In this article we shall speak of their sophistry
with "dragons" and... little red riding hood !
As soon as an atheist is cornered by the
argument that he cannot dogmatize without proofs that God
does not exist, he will ALMOST ALWAYS resort to the same
method. He will first begin to play with words; for example, he
will say something like:
"An atheist is the one who DENIES THE
EXISTENCE OF GOD, or, he is someone who DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD,
and not the one who BELIEVES THAT THERE IS NO GOD. There is a
fundamental difference here. Of course if you express it
incorrectly, it is logical that it will seem like atheism
presupposes a faith in the nonexistence of God."
whether you believe in God or don't believe, from the moment
that you CHOOSE to not believe
(if that is the expression you prefer), then you are doing so
WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. You are taking a position
without having any proof. Otherwise, you could have simply
stated "I don't know". You would NOT have said "I don't believe
in a god". Is it that hard, for you to state "I don't know" ?
To state "I
don't believe in a god" in the sense of "I don't know if there
is a god" is both consistent and logical. But if this statement
is supposed to imply that "there IS NO GOD", then it is a
DOGMATIC FORMULATION and as such, it must be supported by
And we must point out here that
expressions such as "WE don't know if a God exists" are equally
erroneous, because in this way, the speaker GENERALIZES HIS OWN
IGNORANCE, to apply to everyone. If one individual doesn't know
that God exists, then it is totally different to EVERYONE not
knowing. Thus, generalizations of this kind are equally
irrational. It is more appropriate if that one person says "I
don't know....", otherwise, he must justify HOW he
knows that everyone else doesn't know.
The atheist's next step is to try
to avoid presenting any proof, in which case, he will resort to
"Well, there is a
fundamental principle in logic, according to which, the one who
makes a positive statement (for example, 'there IS a god' or 'I
haven't eaten or drunk anything in 40 years') is the one who has
to prove that statement, and not the opposite. In other words,
I am not obliged to prove why there is no god; the other is
obliged to prove to me that god exists. The reason for the
validity of this principle is obvious..."
In this case, he will attempt to
avoid the presentation of evidence, by shifting the weight of
proof onto the faithful. But certain important issues escape
him. He is overlooking the historical/judicial method of proof..
In any courtroom, the testimony
of even one eyewitness is taken into account. Thus, while the
faithful place credence on the millions of testimonies by
eyewitnesses who have become acquainted with God personally, the
atheist denies those testimonies in an unscientific manner, and
himself DOGMATIZES without any supporting evidence that all
those testimonies are either false or imaginary. Thus we see
that it is NOT about the atheist not being given any evidence
(because eyewitnesses constitute
adequate testimony); it is about his REJECTING those
testimonies. And he rejects them without providing the
slightest evidence against those eyewitnesses! Thus, we can see
that the burden of proof falls upon the atheist, because the
faithful believe on the basis of historical witness - in other
words, they have a witnessed reason to believe. Whereas, on
what basis does the atheist not believe?
And here we have the last atheist
refuge in a discussion of this kind; this is where they begin to
talk about dragons and little red riding hood, with... pink
So, we notice the atheist
resorting to an argument along the following lines:
"Do you mean that
anyone can just stubbornly maintain whichever proposal he likes,
without giving any explanations? For example, claims such as:
'flying spaghetti monsters exist' or 'dragons exist' and of
course 'god exists'. Well, the only way we can avoid such a
confusion is to ask the one who supports a proposal to present
the proofs that support it... and not ask his interlocutor to
prove why flying spaghetti monsters do NOT exist, or why god
doesn't exist, etc..."
This atheistic sophistry is a
classic case of subterfuge for the purpose of creating
impressions. The atheist chooses to use "dragons" and "flying
spaghetti monsters" as an example; in other words, he chooses
something that by definition does not exist, in order to
predispose the other on the matter of God,
for Whom there are millions of testimonies that He exists.
This is evidence of a subconscious (albeit unwitting) use of
subterfuge, on account of the atheist's inability to confront
the eyewitness testimonies differently. This is exactly what
applies, in the example with the dragon: the atheist chooses
something by definition nonexistent in his attempt to justify
something that is adequately testified.
We could use ... little red
riding hood, a flying spaghetti monster - or something similarly
witnessed as nonexistent - however, we might use the example of
the dragon, which covers all of the above cases and has been
taken from a Greek edition of a book by Carl Sagan, which
contains the following sophistry:
dragon lives in my garage».
you say. I take you to my garage. You look inside and you see a
ladder, some empty cans of paint, an old tricycle, but no dragon
is to be seen.
«Where is the
dragon?» you ask.
«Ah, but it is here»,
I reply, with a vague gesture. «I forgot to mention that
this one is an invisible dragon».
So you suggest sprinkling
some flour on the floor of the garage, in order to locate the
I tell him, «but this dragon flies in the air».
Then we shall use a detector
that can capture the invisible fire.
I tell him, «but invisible fire doesn't give off any
Then you can spray the dragon
with paint and he will become visible.
«Good idea, except
that the dragon doesn't have a body and so the paint won't work».
And so it continues.... I
refute all of the natural tests that you suggested, with a
precise explanation as to the reason they won't work.
What is the difference between an
invisible, bodiless, flying dragon that spits heatless flames
and an altogether nonexistent dragon?
We shall analyze the above
sophistry further along, in order to clearly expose the
irrationality of its example, when we talk about God and not a
First of all, this unfortunate
example uses a Dragon - something that by definition
does not exist . However, if something else were
used - which is not proven as nonexistant - then it wouldn't
sound as strange. If for example it had spoken of "an
alien", no-one would have thought: "call a psychiatrist!"
because no-one can rule out the possibility that aliens exist.
But here, a dragon is purposely used, in order to negatively
predispose the listener or the reader of this example,
towards the faithful! God is likewise NOT NONEXISTENT by
definition, the way a dragon is; on the contrary, He is a Person
Whom many people have met and have even suffered martyrdom for
description mentioned above plays the same role;
contradictory elements are given on purpose, in order to
negatively predispose the reader, given that - by definition -
something that breathes does so in order to stay alive. This
means we are referring to a creature with needs. But the flames
are - by definition again - something that burns and destroys a
creature. Therefore, how can a creature breathe fire and live?
Therefore, the atheist is cunningly giving opposite and
contradictory meanings here in order to negatively predispose
the faithful, and he is arbitrarily transposing them to the
subject of "God" - as though God is a creature!
The very next argument in the
example is equally cunning: "it is here", and in fact
"in the garage". Here, the logical trap is in the fact
that while the dragon is by definition finite, God is by
definition infinite. Because, while the dragon as an endo-cosmic
creature with needs is "somewhere", God is not "somewhere". He
is omnipresent by definition. Therefore there should not be any
comparison between a finite being (and one that is by definition
mythical), with a Being that is by definition infinite and
omnipresent. Therefore, while it would be a problem for one to
state that a breathing creature (like the foolish example of a
dragon) is "somewhere" but cannot become perceptible, with God
it would not be a problem, because in actual fact EVERYTHING
that exists is a product of His existence. He becomes manifest,
BY EVERYTHING that is contained in His omnipresent existence.
God is not "here" or "there"; He is EVERYWHERE. And He is not
made manifest by one thing or another, but by everything that
is in existence, inasmuch as He is the initial cause of their
The next phrase of the atheist's
example is even more cunning: "I forgot to mention
that this one is an invisible dragon". The phrase:
"I forgot to mention" clearly denotes that the dragon supporter
is a con man, because he is pulling over-simplified excuses out
of his brain, in order to reinforce his argument. Therefore,
this also cannot be respected as an example, because contrary to
the inconsistent dragon, Christians have clearly formulated
dogmas regarding God, so that no-one can accuse them of
merely spouting excuses.
Nor does the expression "invisible
dragon" have any meaning, because it too is a
contradiction in terms. This is because dragons are "by
definition" visible, inasmuch as they have been depicted in
innumerable legendary images, while on the contrary, God is
by definition invisible to us, because He is a
BEYOND-THE-UNIVERSE BEING and is not comprised of any Time-Space
elements the way that creatures are.
Similarly, the phrase: "invisible
fire, which doesn't give off any heat" is equally
contradictory in itself and meaningless, because fire - by
definition - is visible, and it does give off heat. Otherwise,
it would not be fire, but something else. And furthermore, an
endo-cosmic creature like the "dragon" of this infantile
example, which also apparently "breathes", cannot possibly NOT
interact with any other elements in our cosmos, therefore there
is always a way of discovering traces of its existence. On the
contrary, God is not just a beyond-the-universe Entity;
Holy Light, which appears in Jerusalem and DOES
NOT BURN during the first moments of its appearance when it sets
candles alight, is actually visible. We Christians, therefore,
do not speak of things "invisible", "contradictory"
and "vague", in the manner of the contradiction-riddled
example of the dragon, but of things that have clearly been
formulated logically and are visible. When Christians state
that: In Jerusalem, one can SEE the Holy Light of the invisible
God, we can actually demonstrate this. We are very specific and
consistent in the statements that we make.
Even the last phrase: "the
dragon doesn't have a body" is likewise contradictory.
Because, if it breathes, and it is somewhere (inside the
garage), then by definition this implies that it does possess a
body. On the contrary, we Christians of course state that God by
definition does not have a body Himself, because being a
beyond-the-universe entity, He is not confined by Space and
Time. On the contrary, we say that EVERYTHING is inside Him,
inasmuch as He permeates everything.
From the above, we can clearly
see the leaps of logic that the atheists resort to, in
order to compare something that is by definition nonexistent and
contradictory, to something that is by definition logical and
witnessed. The same applies to every example that they can
possibly come up with - including pink flying elephants,
fairy-tale characters like little red riding hood, and green
donkeys that can fly. These are all purposely chosen,
contradictory inventions that are intended to predispose their
However, atheists do not
provide us with the slightest indication as to WHY they do not
accept the TESTIMONIES of millions of eyewitnesses, who have
testified throughout History that they have had a personal
"encounter" with God. On what logical grounds do they
reject with such certainty that a primary cause does exist
behind this wonderful creation of the entire Cosmos? Can they
perhaps show us - with evidence - another equally complex object
as the human brain, within the confines of Time and Space, which
has come into being from nil? Logic suggests the existence of a
primary cause. Atheists deny it, the way they deny the
testimonies of eyewitnesses, and then they want to speak of
However, atheists might tell us
"You don't believe
solely in God; you also believe in a host of angels and demons
which you regard as creatures. Creatures that aren't
omnipresent, and are invisible, right under your noses but you
can't see them. Isn't that the same as stating that you have a
dragon in your garage?"
Given that we are not talking
about dragons (which are by definition nonexistent), but of
creatures that belong to other dimensions, we shall let science
speak for us. We shall quote herebelow an excerpt from an
article by Savvas Demopoulos,
professor at Stanford University in the USA,
with the title "In Search of the Hidden Dimensions":
"Our universe may simply
be a membrane that was the result of an expansion of the three
known dimensions. We could imagine certain other beings as
coexisting next to us in every millimeter of the space that we
occupy, and yet we are unable to meet them. That is because they
are in a universe that is comprised of other dimensions, which
are unknown to us." (Greek "FOCUS" science magazine,
issue No.53, July 2004, pages 23, 24)
possibility of such beings existing could not be
doubted, even by Sagan; how much more so, when we have so many
other testimonies of their existence!