Are you a Christian Solipsist? Do your experiences prove God exists?

It is amazing to me how many orthodox Christians will refuse to accept the mountain of evidence that I have presented that clearly demonstrates not only that the Bible is not inerrant, but that the Christian god is non-existent; or at a minimum, he is prone to telling very big fish stories about himself.  The stories in the first half of the Old Testament are blatantly fabricated.

These Christians have a bullet-proof fall-back position in their defense of orthodox Christianity:  “My experiences tell me that the Christian God is true and that the Bible can be trusted to be true.”

When I say to them, “So what you are saying is that you know that the Christian god is real based on your feelings,” they vehemently deny this.  When I ask, “So you know that the Christian god is real based on your intuition,” they vehemently deny this also.  Their final response is:  “I know that God is real because I have experienced him work in my life.  He has proven to me that He exists.  The Holy Spirit has manifested himself to me personally.”

What these Christians are saying is, “Historical and physical evidence is not necessary to believe in (the Christian) God.  The Holy Spirit will reveal himself to you if you will simply believe in Jesus as your Lord and Savior.”

There is a term for this type of belief system.  It is called Solipsism.  Are you a Christian Solipsist?  Read the interesting article below by former Christian, John Loftus, to find out:

Copied fromDebunking Christianity

William Lane Craig is an Epistemological Solipsist


Several people have asked me whether or not (Christian historian and apologist, William Lane) Craig sincerely believes, or whether he goes through the motions, so to speak, since he is surely fully aware of the objections we skeptics offer to his faith. I maintain he’s sincerely deluded. He sincerely believes, but he’s deluded. And I think I’ve found the reason why he can continue on in the face of what I consider to be the powerful objections of the skeptics.
If you’ve seen any of Craig’s debates that I post here at DC, in every single one of them he says, in so many words, that he has personally experienced God and that others can too. I think his position reduces to Epistemological Solipsism and subject to all of the same criticisms. Let me explain.
In his signature book, Reasonable Faith, Craig has written about this topic. We find him saying things like…

We know Christianity to be true by the self-authenticating witness of God’s Holy Spirit.

What does he mean by this?

I mean that the witness, or testimony, of the Holy Spirit is its own proof; it is unmistakable; it does not need other proofs to back it up; it is self-evident and attests to its own truth.

And this as quoted in my book (p. 214)…

the testimony of the Holy Spirit trumps all other evidence.

And this…

A believer who is too uninformed or ill-equipped to refute anti-Christian arguments is rational in believing on the grounds of the witness of the Spirit in his heart even in the face of such unrefuted objections. Even such a person confronted with what are for him unanswerable objections to Christian theism is, because of the work of the Holy Spirit, within his epistemic rights—nay, under epistemic obligation—to believe in God.”

In his debate with Austin Dacey he says…

You can know that God exists apart from any arguments simply by experiencing him….For those who listen, God becomes an immediate reality in their lives.

Now let’s put this into perspective. When Craig is asked to defend his view of the self-authenticating witness of the Spirit, he cannot sufficiently answer my questions and must resort to saying that the propositional content of this witness is “vague” or “ambiguous,” and turns the tables on me with a red herring, seen here.
Now here’s my point. If Craig thinks this inner witness trumps all evidence and arguments to the contrary, which he claims, then even if he cannot sufficiently defend his notion of the inner witness of the Spirit, it doesn’t matter to him. He claims he knows Christianity is true irrespective of all the arguments and evidence to the contrary, even his arguments on behalf of the inner witness of the Spirit! That is, even if he cannot sufficiently defend the arguments on behalf of this inner witness, he still maintains he has it, and because he has it, he can believe despite the fact that he cannot sufficiently argue for it, and despite all evidence to the contrary.
This seems to me to be nothing more nor less than Epistemological Solipsism when it comes to the existence of God, and subject to the same kinds of criticisms.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s