(Kohael <PC>
Before attempting any kind of response to your argument, I'd like to know where you are drawing your conclusion that God has created nature in a uniform manner.
(Me) The Bible.
(Mr_Eon) If there were such a thing as a single unifying Divinity, creator and sustainer of all, I would have to believe that his argument would be a lot clearer. This is, after all, the creator of language and comprehension! And yet there are dozens of major religions, THREE of which claim him for a divinity. Within Christianity itself there are at least 75 divisions, cults and splinter groups.
Why all the confusion? Why all the cloak and dagger guerrila philosophy? Why were there at least 12 saints in the time of Jesus - and not one around now? Why is his plan based entirely around self-aggrandisement? Why eternal ####ation over destruction - a solution that even the basest despot knows is more merciful?
(Me) The argument and truth are clear, and I've offered a powerful argument in favor of biblical Christianity.
Regarding cults and splinter groups -- when looking at the vast majority of them, you'll note that nearly all these splits involve strange new prophecies and revelation. They also involve covering up and lying about the message of the real Bible. For instance, look at Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. Look at the Millerites or original (they've changed) Seventh-Day Adventists.
Regarding other religions -- yet none can point to the cross but Christians.
"Saints" in our day -- yet their foundational work continues, and much of their teaching is preserved for us in the text of the Scriptures. They even foretold (Eph 2:20, for instance) that apostles would stop coming forth at the end of the short apostolic era.
(Dionysus) Ha and the writers of the bible also thought the world was flat. Do you sill believe that? Probably.
(Me) Many of them probably did. But how is that relevant? None of them indicated as much in the Bible, as it is false that the earth is flat. Thus, although the human authors were imperfect, the divine author was and is.
(Dionysus) Have you killed any homosexuals lately? Have you told your mom to bring you food and to bring it now? I think not.
(Me) ??
(Dionysus) Times have changed. Science is accurate.
(Me) True science is. However, as Kuhn has pointed out in the earth-shattering "Structure of Scientific Revolutions," modern science is arbitrary. He is a secular author writing mostly unchallenged claims. Furthermore, as my argument pointed out, science is nothing without God.
(Dionysus) There's a lot to lose in believing in a creator, time. I'd rather spend my life learning about a lot of thing rather than stick to a story book.
(Me) That's fine, but your personal desires and opinions have no bearing on the truth of this matter. While there may be the autobiographical fact that you don't like Christianity, on what grounds do you attack it intellectually?
(Dionysus) It's a relic and therefore should be treated as one. It's inconsistent and irrational.
(Me) You charge that the Scripture is inconsistent and irrational. First, offer substantiation for such a claim -- where is the proof that it is inconsistent? Second, you charge that it is irrational. Yet, as I've already pointed out, the non-Christian has no proper standard of rationality from which to charge that Christianity is irrational. Where is your logic found? Is it conventions of men? Then it is not absolute. Is it laws in nature, found through nature? Then how do you know them to be necessarily true, and how can you accept them without induction? Furthermore, how do you connect the various realms of experience and truth coherently, such that logic has bearing over empirical evidence, etc.? Obviously I don't expect you to begin a discourse on logic and rationality here. If you think you can, go right ahead. However, unless you can at least provide the broad strokes and overarching framework for rationality, where is your rationality?
(Dionysus) I lead a great life with out your bible. I have a great wife, wonderful family, great job, all with out a single prayer or belief in your god or your jesus.
(Me) It depends on what you mean by "a great life." If you mean that you achieve many of the desires you express, then you are correct. But truth is not centered around what accomplishes our personal goals and satisfies our personal desires. For imperfection and abomination to the holiness of God, you stand now judged for eternity; repent. Believe and be saved by the unmerited atonement of Christ.
Before attempting any kind of response to your argument, I'd like to know where you are drawing your conclusion that God has created nature in a uniform manner.(Me) The Bible.
(Mr_Eon) If there were such a thing as a single unifying Divinity, creator and sustainer of all, I would have to believe that his argument would be a lot clearer. This is, after all, the creator of language and comprehension! And yet there are dozens of major religions, THREE of which claim him for a divinity. Within Christianity itself there are at least 75 divisions, cults and splinter groups.
Why all the confusion? Why all the cloak and dagger guerrila philosophy? Why were there at least 12 saints in the time of Jesus - and not one around now? Why is his plan based entirely around self-aggrandisement? Why eternal ####ation over destruction - a solution that even the basest despot knows is more merciful?
(Me) The argument and truth are clear, and I've offered a powerful argument in favor of biblical Christianity.
Regarding cults and splinter groups -- when looking at the vast majority of them, you'll note that nearly all these splits involve strange new prophecies and revelation. They also involve covering up and lying about the message of the real Bible. For instance, look at Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. Look at the Millerites or original (they've changed) Seventh-Day Adventists.
Regarding other religions -- yet none can point to the cross but Christians.
"Saints" in our day -- yet their foundational work continues, and much of their teaching is preserved for us in the text of the Scriptures. They even foretold (Eph 2:20, for instance) that apostles would stop coming forth at the end of the short apostolic era.
(Dionysus) Ha and the writers of the bible also thought the world was flat. Do you sill believe that? Probably.
(Me) Many of them probably did. But how is that relevant? None of them indicated as much in the Bible, as it is false that the earth is flat. Thus, although the human authors were imperfect, the divine author was and is.
(Dionysus) Have you killed any homosexuals lately? Have you told your mom to bring you food and to bring it now? I think not.
(Me) ??
(Dionysus) Times have changed. Science is accurate.
(Me) True science is. However, as Kuhn has pointed out in the earth-shattering "Structure of Scientific Revolutions," modern science is arbitrary. He is a secular author writing mostly unchallenged claims. Furthermore, as my argument pointed out, science is nothing without God.
(Dionysus) There's a lot to lose in believing in a creator, time. I'd rather spend my life learning about a lot of thing rather than stick to a story book.
(Me) That's fine, but your personal desires and opinions have no bearing on the truth of this matter. While there may be the autobiographical fact that you don't like Christianity, on what grounds do you attack it intellectually?
(Dionysus) It's a relic and therefore should be treated as one. It's inconsistent and irrational.
(Me) You charge that the Scripture is inconsistent and irrational. First, offer substantiation for such a claim -- where is the proof that it is inconsistent? Second, you charge that it is irrational. Yet, as I've already pointed out, the non-Christian has no proper standard of rationality from which to charge that Christianity is irrational. Where is your logic found? Is it conventions of men? Then it is not absolute. Is it laws in nature, found through nature? Then how do you know them to be necessarily true, and how can you accept them without induction? Furthermore, how do you connect the various realms of experience and truth coherently, such that logic has bearing over empirical evidence, etc.? Obviously I don't expect you to begin a discourse on logic and rationality here. If you think you can, go right ahead. However, unless you can at least provide the broad strokes and overarching framework for rationality, where is your rationality?
(Dionysus) I lead a great life with out your bible. I have a great wife, wonderful family, great job, all with out a single prayer or belief in your god or your jesus.
(Me) It depends on what you mean by "a great life." If you mean that you achieve many of the desires you express, then you are correct. But truth is not centered around what accomplishes our personal goals and satisfies our personal desires. For imperfection and abomination to the holiness of God, you stand now judged for eternity; repent. Believe and be saved by the unmerited atonement of Christ.
K
Kohael <PC>
Guest
"(Me) The Bible."
Fair enough. Now, in order to clarify the already blindingly obvious meaning of my original question, "What verse in the bible?"
Fair enough. Now, in order to clarify the already blindingly obvious meaning of my original question, "What verse in the bible?"
I
Inner Fire
Guest
Hmm...never heard scriptural support for dinosaurs. That's intriguing...
Before I go into the whole evolution thingy:
My favorite proposition: If there is no God, why bother arguing? If we came about through evolution, should it not be more meaningful to stop discussing "abstract things", go make money, gather food, and have lotsa babies? Plus all these discussions are merely neurons firing within some biological medium. What does it really acheive? Nothing except pruning some connections and creating some chemicals. It means nothing. But I guess we can't help it because we're controlled by physics to continue debating useless things. I guess that's the fate of a conscious mind that thinks it has a purpose and free will but is no more than a "by-product" of physics.
So let's go have babies!
Before I go into the whole evolution thingy:
My favorite proposition: If there is no God, why bother arguing? If we came about through evolution, should it not be more meaningful to stop discussing "abstract things", go make money, gather food, and have lotsa babies? Plus all these discussions are merely neurons firing within some biological medium. What does it really acheive? Nothing except pruning some connections and creating some chemicals. It means nothing. But I guess we can't help it because we're controlled by physics to continue debating useless things. I guess that's the fate of a conscious mind that thinks it has a purpose and free will but is no more than a "by-product" of physics.
So let's go have babies!
K
Kohael <PC>
Guest
I suppose it beats getting blasted out of existance to show how great God is.
I
Inner Fire
Guest
Ok, on a serious note:
Mr Eon: Just like most other people I've come across, you say you don't have to start with the answer to deduce things. Actually, you do. You have faith in the scientific method. You believe the answer lies in humanity's ability to discover knowledge by observation. And that answer allows you to deduce other smaller answers. You live by what the Bible calls "sight".
Most of what we know about science are observed regularities. We say that a theory holds because it has withstood many tests. However, there are things you DO have to accept by faith, such as macroevolution. People have never seen it in progress, but since we see microevolution, we assume it holds for a larger scale. I don't know if it does. It very well could, but like I said, it's a matter of faith.
And from what I posted elsewhere, you only put faith in what you DESIRE.
I have faith in science and human reason, because for the most part, they have succeeded. I have some faith in evolution; I am not against it as a process, nor am I much inclined to believing in a young earth (6000 years old). I also have faith in God, because He made Himself known to me, and I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God because it has withstood the scrutiny of atheists and theologians over time. I do NOT have faith in old catholicism that mix Aristotle's metaphysics and Roman government with Christianity to create a hybrid religion (that most ppl still think holds for Christianity today) that contradicted science, started the crusades, and burned heretics at the stake. I also believe that man is a miracle that could not have arose out of pure physical matter. Why? We are conscious, and the world we live in revolves around mental things (love, hate, happiness, sadness, anger, logic, thought, etc), as opposed to physical things (delta-fibers stimulated, neuron A fired, etc).
Science is actually an INDIRECT interface for us. While we experience happiness and love and anger *directly*, we can only *represent* science according to mental constructs in our heads. Think about that for a while.
<end g33kn3ss>
Mr Eon: Just like most other people I've come across, you say you don't have to start with the answer to deduce things. Actually, you do. You have faith in the scientific method. You believe the answer lies in humanity's ability to discover knowledge by observation. And that answer allows you to deduce other smaller answers. You live by what the Bible calls "sight".
Most of what we know about science are observed regularities. We say that a theory holds because it has withstood many tests. However, there are things you DO have to accept by faith, such as macroevolution. People have never seen it in progress, but since we see microevolution, we assume it holds for a larger scale. I don't know if it does. It very well could, but like I said, it's a matter of faith.
And from what I posted elsewhere, you only put faith in what you DESIRE.
I have faith in science and human reason, because for the most part, they have succeeded. I have some faith in evolution; I am not against it as a process, nor am I much inclined to believing in a young earth (6000 years old). I also have faith in God, because He made Himself known to me, and I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God because it has withstood the scrutiny of atheists and theologians over time. I do NOT have faith in old catholicism that mix Aristotle's metaphysics and Roman government with Christianity to create a hybrid religion (that most ppl still think holds for Christianity today) that contradicted science, started the crusades, and burned heretics at the stake. I also believe that man is a miracle that could not have arose out of pure physical matter. Why? We are conscious, and the world we live in revolves around mental things (love, hate, happiness, sadness, anger, logic, thought, etc), as opposed to physical things (delta-fibers stimulated, neuron A fired, etc).
K
Kohael <PC>
Guest
"Think about that for a while. <end g33kn3ss>"
I think about it, and I see no significance, other than that we've an incomplete understanding of joy, anger, etc, and what makes them what they are. If that makes me unromantic, so be it.
I think about it, and I see no significance, other than that we've an incomplete understanding of joy, anger, etc, and what makes them what they are. If that makes me unromantic, so be it.
LionOfJudah
Member, Dreamcast Fishing Guru
if i remember rightly Joshua but i may be wrong like i ahve been on many other occasions
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
Fine, Mr Fire... How about I give you a shot of Serotonin in the right part of your body, and you tell me how divine that was?
<rolls eyes> The brain is a bio-mechanical construct - pretty much every EMOTION we feel has a chemical base to it. Most cruder emotions can be synthesised by Adrenaline, NorAdrenaline, Serotonin, Lithium etc...
The only thing that Science doesn't seem to be on the road to proving is HOW consciousness IS. But then, 100 years ago it wasn't proving very much at all about the brain, so hang on for the ride...
<rolls eyes> The brain is a bio-mechanical construct - pretty much every EMOTION we feel has a chemical base to it. Most cruder emotions can be synthesised by Adrenaline, NorAdrenaline, Serotonin, Lithium etc...
The only thing that Science doesn't seem to be on the road to proving is HOW consciousness IS. But then, 100 years ago it wasn't proving very much at all about the brain, so hang on for the ride...
(Kohael <PC> Fair enough. Now, in order to clarify the already blindingly obvious meaning of my original question, "What verse in the bible?"
(Me) Ah, then that is an excellent question! I'm often asked these same kinds of questions, and often spend a great deal of time compiling verses, only to find that "the Bible" would have been a sufficient answer. I'll try to get back to you. My computer (which has a Bible on it, so I can cut 'n' paste) is broken right now. As I recall, I have some books in Austin (I've left home for a few weeks) with excellent discussions on this matter. I'll try to rack my memory for some responses.
Excellent question, God bless, and bless God.
Soli Deo Gloria,
John
Fair enough. Now, in order to clarify the already blindingly obvious meaning of my original question, "What verse in the bible?"(Me) Ah, then that is an excellent question! I'm often asked these same kinds of questions, and often spend a great deal of time compiling verses, only to find that "the Bible" would have been a sufficient answer. I'll try to get back to you. My computer (which has a Bible on it, so I can cut 'n' paste) is broken right now. As I recall, I have some books in Austin (I've left home for a few weeks) with excellent discussions on this matter. I'll try to rack my memory for some responses.
Excellent question, God bless, and bless God.
Soli Deo Gloria,
John
K
Kohael <PC>
Guest
"I'm often asked these same kinds of questions, and often spend a great deal of time compiling verses, only to find that "the Bible" would have been a sufficient answer."
That's fair enough.. I'd rather debate something intelligent like this than engage in absolutly pointless banter about whether or not such and such a mollusk could've evolved according to some interpretation of evolutionary theory. I'll be awaiting your response.
That's fair enough.. I'd rather debate something intelligent like this than engage in absolutly pointless banter about whether or not such and such a mollusk could've evolved according to some interpretation of evolutionary theory. I'll be awaiting your response.
(Mr_Eon) The only thing that Science doesn't seem to be on the road to proving is HOW consciousness IS. But then, 100 years ago it wasn't proving very much at all about the brain, so hang on for the ride...[b said:
(Me) Yet science can draw NO conclusions unless grounded in a number of metaphysical assumptions. For instance, it tries together Occam's razor, induction, deduction, the uniformity of nature, and empirical experience. Yet these cannot come from the natural sciences (here referred to as 'science') alone, as empirical study and observation is unrelated to establishing principles like these (at least not from a finite data set; yet, in an infinite set of data, science would not be needed). As I've pointed out, the atheistic worldview cannot account for these things, so science is meaningless and groundlessly arbitrary if we make atheistic assumptions. Additionally, metaphysical assumptions must be made in order to determine results -- for instance, why do we think that the force of friction stops cars instead of invisible gremlins? That is clearly a conclusion drawn from metaphysics, for both conclusions are completely consistent with the finite data set we've been given.
Soli Deo Gloria
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
That's not, strictly, true... We now know a great deal about the nature of matter that teaches us what friction is, and we can track it by the monitoring of the energy it releases (heat).
I remain surprised at your assumption that it is impossible to achieve knowledge by starting with a blank piece of paper and testing uninformed assumptions - attempting to "prove" them if you will. I remain entirely unconvinced by your arguments - indeed I find it difficult to even put my finger on the central point you claim negates the scientific method.
I remain surprised at your assumption that it is impossible to achieve knowledge by starting with a blank piece of paper and testing uninformed assumptions - attempting to "prove" them if you will. I remain entirely unconvinced by your arguments - indeed I find it difficult to even put my finger on the central point you claim negates the scientific method.
(Mr_Eon) That's not, strictly, true... We now know a great deal about the nature of matter that teaches us what friction is, and we can track it by the monitoring of the energy it releases (heat).
(Me) If you have an answer, please offer it. The "gremlin" theory of all interaction was offered a few decades ago to point out the necessities of metaphysical assumptions in the philosophy of science. An effectively unchallenged story was told about these gremlins, accounting for inertia, gravity, friction, etc. What real proof have we that it is invisible forces like gravity, inertia, and friction that cause the physical interactions in our world rather than these invisible, intangible gremlins? Do we have a great deal of information about matter? Well, yes, we think so. yet we make make another metaphysical assumption here -- that the images in our mind are actually good representations of the matter which which we are interacting, etc. And, of course, science has literally no way of distinguishing between intangible, invisible forces like gravity or friction and intangible, invisible gremlins. If you think it does (other than metaphysics), please explain.
(Mr_Eon) I remain surprised at your assumption that it is impossible to achieve knowledge by starting with a blank piece of paper and testing uninformed assumptions - attempting to "prove" them if you will. I remain entirely unconvinced by your arguments - indeed I find it difficult to even put my finger on the central point you claim negates the scientific method.
(Me) I've pointed out, for instance, the problem of induction. We think that my tossing up an apple 100 times and it falling down 100 times means that the 101st time it will probably fall down again. In other words, for instance, we think that the future is like the past and so on -- we believe in the general uniformity of nature. Yet why should we think that nature is generally uniform apart from God? I've already given the response famously offered by Hume and Russell that creates the problem of induction: if we say that the future was like the past before, or that in some places nature seemed uniform, how can we argue for induction without assuming induction? For, if I say this:
1. In the past, the future was like the past
2. Therefore, in the future, the future will be like the past
Then I am operating on the assumption that the future IS like the past. Again,
1. In some places, I experienced a regularity in nature between some things and other things
2. In other places, I will experience a regularity in nature between some things and other things
requires the assumption that various places in nature are similar. Therefore, by the problem of induction, how are we to account for the uniformity of nature without appealing to divine creation and maintenance? This problem is unanswered in non-theistic philosophy even to the present.
Without induction, how will we get laws or theories of any kind from science? For how can we expect to predict future outcomes or outcomes in other places unless we think that nature is generally uniform? I pointed out the future and the past with the apple and gravity. Yet I could also point out apples and oranges. If I establish the Law of Gravity for apples, why should I think it applies to oranges or cars or people without the uniformity in nature? Ultimately, then, in order to make a scientific theory, I'm going to have to experiment on everything for all time -- and, in that case, I have no need of forming scientific laws and theories for prediction!
1. Science is useless without the uniformity of nature
2. Atheism does not account for the uniformity of nature
----------------
3. Therefore, atheism precludes science
Soli Deo Gloria
(Me) If you have an answer, please offer it. The "gremlin" theory of all interaction was offered a few decades ago to point out the necessities of metaphysical assumptions in the philosophy of science. An effectively unchallenged story was told about these gremlins, accounting for inertia, gravity, friction, etc. What real proof have we that it is invisible forces like gravity, inertia, and friction that cause the physical interactions in our world rather than these invisible, intangible gremlins? Do we have a great deal of information about matter? Well, yes, we think so. yet we make make another metaphysical assumption here -- that the images in our mind are actually good representations of the matter which which we are interacting, etc. And, of course, science has literally no way of distinguishing between intangible, invisible forces like gravity or friction and intangible, invisible gremlins. If you think it does (other than metaphysics), please explain.
(Mr_Eon) I remain surprised at your assumption that it is impossible to achieve knowledge by starting with a blank piece of paper and testing uninformed assumptions - attempting to "prove" them if you will. I remain entirely unconvinced by your arguments - indeed I find it difficult to even put my finger on the central point you claim negates the scientific method.
(Me) I've pointed out, for instance, the problem of induction. We think that my tossing up an apple 100 times and it falling down 100 times means that the 101st time it will probably fall down again. In other words, for instance, we think that the future is like the past and so on -- we believe in the general uniformity of nature. Yet why should we think that nature is generally uniform apart from God? I've already given the response famously offered by Hume and Russell that creates the problem of induction: if we say that the future was like the past before, or that in some places nature seemed uniform, how can we argue for induction without assuming induction? For, if I say this:
1. In the past, the future was like the past
2. Therefore, in the future, the future will be like the past
Then I am operating on the assumption that the future IS like the past. Again,
1. In some places, I experienced a regularity in nature between some things and other things
2. In other places, I will experience a regularity in nature between some things and other things
requires the assumption that various places in nature are similar. Therefore, by the problem of induction, how are we to account for the uniformity of nature without appealing to divine creation and maintenance? This problem is unanswered in non-theistic philosophy even to the present.
Without induction, how will we get laws or theories of any kind from science? For how can we expect to predict future outcomes or outcomes in other places unless we think that nature is generally uniform? I pointed out the future and the past with the apple and gravity. Yet I could also point out apples and oranges. If I establish the Law of Gravity for apples, why should I think it applies to oranges or cars or people without the uniformity in nature? Ultimately, then, in order to make a scientific theory, I'm going to have to experiment on everything for all time -- and, in that case, I have no need of forming scientific laws and theories for prediction!
1. Science is useless without the uniformity of nature
2. Atheism does not account for the uniformity of nature
----------------
3. Therefore, atheism precludes science
Soli Deo Gloria
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
What's your point, again? We have seen, through the process of experimentation, that Matter, Energy, Time - these things all have a TENDENCY to behave in a certain way under certain conditions. Science is based on the theory that, if you can recreate EXACT conditions and stimuli, an identical material will behave the same way each time.
You say that Atheism cannot explain the uniformity of nature - but I say to YOU that Atheism DEMANDS the uniformity of nature through the belief that the Universe is a complex system of predictable reactions and interactions, undriven by a subjective viewpoint.
Now CHRISTIANITY cannot explain why God would will things to work according to a system that seems to suggest his absence, rather than his presence.
You say that Atheism cannot explain the uniformity of nature - but I say to YOU that Atheism DEMANDS the uniformity of nature through the belief that the Universe is a complex system of predictable reactions and interactions, undriven by a subjective viewpoint.
Now CHRISTIANITY cannot explain why God would will things to work according to a system that seems to suggest his absence, rather than his presence.
K
Kohael <PC>
Guest
Hey TheFe, since your argument depends on Christianity demanding a uniform universe, and you've yet to show that it does, maybe you should pick a different tactic until you get your comp fixed? BTW, if a Bible's the problem, there are numerous searchable Bibles on line.
(Mr_Eon) What's your point, again? We have seen, through the process of experimentation, that Matter, Energy, Time - these things all have a TENDENCY to behave in a certain way under certain conditions. Science is based on the theory that, if you can recreate EXACT conditions and stimuli, an identical material will behave the same way each time.
(Me) And this is exactly my point! Science is necessarily based on that assumption, but the atheistic worldview cannot provide that starting assumption. Therefore, the atheistic worldview cannot use science whatsoever without being groundless and arbitrary. If the atheist is being purely arbitrary, we've already won the day.
(Mr_Eon) You say that Atheism cannot explain the uniformity of nature - but I say to YOU that Atheism DEMANDS the uniformity of nature through the belief that the Universe is a complex system of predictable reactions and interactions, undriven by a subjective viewpoint.
(Me) Of course it has to assume that. But can it give me a good argument for this?
(Mr_Eon) Now CHRISTIANITY cannot explain why God would will things to work according to a system that seems to suggest his absence, rather than his presence.
(Me) Whether or your not statement is true is irrelevant. For, as the Scripture indicates, God is clearly revealed through _all_ of Creation (Romans 1). Therefore, God has willed things to work in such a way that not only suggests, but makes obvious, His existence.
Soli Deo Gloria
(Me) And this is exactly my point! Science is necessarily based on that assumption, but the atheistic worldview cannot provide that starting assumption. Therefore, the atheistic worldview cannot use science whatsoever without being groundless and arbitrary. If the atheist is being purely arbitrary, we've already won the day.
(Mr_Eon) You say that Atheism cannot explain the uniformity of nature - but I say to YOU that Atheism DEMANDS the uniformity of nature through the belief that the Universe is a complex system of predictable reactions and interactions, undriven by a subjective viewpoint.
(Me) Of course it has to assume that. But can it give me a good argument for this?
(Mr_Eon) Now CHRISTIANITY cannot explain why God would will things to work according to a system that seems to suggest his absence, rather than his presence.
(Me) Whether or your not statement is true is irrelevant. For, as the Scripture indicates, God is clearly revealed through _all_ of Creation (Romans 1). Therefore, God has willed things to work in such a way that not only suggests, but makes obvious, His existence.
Soli Deo Gloria
(Kohael <PC> Hey TheFe, since your argument depends on Christianity demanding a uniform universe, and you've yet to show that it does, maybe you should pick a different tactic until you get your comp fixed? BTW, if a Bible's the problem, there are numerous searchable Bibles on line.
(Me) Off the top of my head, I can think of the following:
Isaiah 45:18
For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited ), "I am the LORD, and there is none else.
The word translated here "waste" (Tohuw, which refers to something formless or a place of chaos) draws a contrast between unordered chaos and God's ordered creation.
Hey TheFe, since your argument depends on Christianity demanding a uniform universe, and you've yet to show that it does, maybe you should pick a different tactic until you get your comp fixed? BTW, if a Bible's the problem, there are numerous searchable Bibles on line.(Me) Off the top of my head, I can think of the following:
Isaiah 45:18
For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited ), "I am the LORD, and there is none else.
The word translated here "waste" (Tohuw, which refers to something formless or a place of chaos) draws a contrast between unordered chaos and God's ordered creation.
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
Can we just get something straight? This seems to be a teensy point that escapes a lot of debaters here. The bible, unsupported by real fact, is not proof. Just because it SAYS that Gods existence is reflected through all of creation, doesn't ACTUALLY mean that it is - unless you're debating with someone else who accepts the infalliability of the bible without question.
As far as I understand, Atheism doesn't CLAIM to have all the answers - in fact it is cheerful about the fact that it is currently engaged in a search for them. However, it claims to be asking the right QUESTIONS. I could be wrong - I'm not actually an Atheist myself.
As far as I understand, Atheism doesn't CLAIM to have all the answers - in fact it is cheerful about the fact that it is currently engaged in a search for them. However, it claims to be asking the right QUESTIONS. I could be wrong - I'm not actually an Atheist myself.
(Mr_Eon) Can we just get something straight? This seems to be a teensy point that escapes a lot of debaters here. The bible, unsupported by real fact, is not proof. Just because it SAYS that Gods existence is reflected through all of creation, doesn't ACTUALLY mean that it is - unless you're debating with someone else who accepts the infalliability of the bible without question.[b said:
(Me) The argument is for the impossibility of the contrary. When a Christian and an Atheist argue, they might just stick to minor points about evidence and facts. Those are fine, as all the evidence points straight to the Triune God of Biblical Christianity. Yet doing so is somewhat theologically dishonest for the following reasons:
1. It assumes that we're all on a level playing field. However, the Bible indicates that the unregenerate need regeneration; that the dead need life (Eph 2:4-5)! Thus, we must point out that they need conversion in every aspect of their life -- both in regards to their eternal salvation and their intellectual salvation
2. In the Bible, the paradigm is set for us to argue that God actually _does_ exist. It is not that we are to argue that God _probably_ exist, or that believing in God's existence is not irrational. Rather, we are to point out that God _must_ exist.
3. The Scriptures indicates that the fear of the Lord is the _beginning_ of knowledge (Prov 1:7), that all the riches of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ Himself (Col 2:3), and that we are to destroy all idolatrous speculations held up against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive to the Lordship of Christ (2 Cor 10:5). Therefore, as _every_ thought must be taken under Christ's Lordship, and as the world's wisdom is foolishness (1 Cor 1:18-24), we are to show unbelievers the futility of their rebellion against God.
Thus, we look to the foundations for evidential interpretation -- ultimately, worldviews. There is a Christian worldview, and atheistic worldview, and so on. Everybody has to have a worldview to have any knowledge, for one's worldview is the perspective through which one examines data in forming knowledge. Brute facts, or facts interpreted apart from a worldview, are mute facts, or facts that mean nothing to a person. We then point out not only that the Christian worldview is _more_ rational than all the others, but that it is the _only_ worldview that is rational at all! Therefore, by the impossibility of the contrary, the Christian worldview is true.
This is called the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God. It reached a peak of systematic explanation and formulation in Cornelius Van Til, famous Reformed theologian, philosopher, and apologist. Books like "The Defense of the Faith," "A Survey of Christian Epistemology," and "Christian Apologetics" are excellent resources. A number of his students, including John Frame, RJ Rushdoony, Francis Schaeffer, and Greg Bahnsen, have continued his tradition. While Schaeffer is most famous, Bahnsen was by far the best philosopher, apologist, and, I think, theologian of the group. His books like "Always Ready" and "Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis" are invaluable resources. His famous debate on God's existence with Gordon Stein (Bahnsen mops the floor with Stein) can be found at http://www.straitgate.com, and a number of his articles can be found at http://www.cmfnow.com and http://www.crta.org.
(Mr_Eon) As far as I understand, Atheism doesn't CLAIM to have all the answers - in fact it is cheerful about the fact that it is currently engaged in a search for them. However, it claims to be asking the right QUESTIONS. I could be wrong - I'm not actually an Atheist myself.
(Me) Atheism claims that God does not exist -- thus, it does, of definitional necessity, claim to have at least one answer. Whether or not atheism claims to have few answers and more questions, the atheist has no hope at finding any answers if his worldview is consistently applied. Atheists love to mock Christians because they are "rational" and use things like "science," while we're just irrational fideists. And yet, as I've pointed out, all philosophers recognize that the atheist has no right whatsoever to conduct science. Science requires that nature be uniform; yet how can atheism provide this precondition for knowledge? Ultimately, atheism can provide us with no knowledge, whether it be logic, science, or morality. Atheism can't even give me a reason to think that turning the key in my car will probably make it start! And yet atheists still know these kinds of things.
Why? Because they have the knowledge of God even though they suppress it (Romans 1). Because they are in the world God created, even though they say they don't believe in Him by deceiving themselves. Think of a man saying that air does not exist, all the while he not only breathes it, but requires that air to make the statement. Think of a child slapping his father's face, all the while his father must hold him up if the child will be able to slap his father's face. In the same way, God holds up those calling themselves atheists even while they mock Him; they require God to reject God. Therefore, all we need to do is point this out to them. They claim to be atheists, but all the while they rely on Christianity to found all their knowledge; they are operating on stolen intellectual capital. We show their inconsistent and arbitrary thought, and point out that the contrary to Christianity is impossible.
This kind of argument has been used by philosophers for years -- Aristotle used it, Kant used it, Strawson used it, etc. Yet all previous transcendental arguments were not really that useful, as they could provide us with no _worldview_; rather, they could provide us only with pieces. The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God, on the other hand, _does_ provide us with a worldview as the foundation for all our knowledge.
Soli Deo Gloria