ARCHIVE: Bob Enyart has already lost the debate ...

[LightSon]

internal coherence of world views

internal coherence of world views

Originally posted by Flasher
What criteria do you use to evalute worldviews? Whether or not I believe them to be true?

Originally posted by Jim H.
Of course not. I use the scriptures, logic, reason, science, history, etc. and determine whether or not there is internal coherence and whether or not the worldview in question undermines the intelligibility of human experience.

Jim, et al.,
I was contemplating worldview coherence as pertains to love and beauty.

I there any reason why when I feel overwhelmed by good feelings of love or the sublime that I should attribute this to God? Does the fact that we appreciate things like oceans and sunsets bespeak the Christian worldview and some specialized "internal coherence "? I seem to want to argue that these do support a coherence in our worldview.

What can the atheist argue? Is there any evolutionary reason why we should enjoy Mozart, not to mention the survival-of-the-fittest need to invent music in the first place? Perhaps I am biased when I look at a sunset, in that I am thankful to my creator for giving me life, breath and eyes to behold the sunset. Perhaps atheists don't enjoy sunsets. Or if they do, perhaps the beauty and filling of the experience is somehow diminished because they have no God to share it with nor to be thankful to. I know that because God indwells me, my experience has far greater value than should we have just appeared accidentally on the planet from slime.

 

[Mr. Ben]

The answer to why are they necessary is… why aren’t they ???? That is not an answer it is another question. You are the one claiming they are necessary so the onus is on you to show why. You are framing the question as though it is one of those fundamental ones we all want answered.. very few humans want to know WHY ? they want to know how, when and where. WHY automatically begs an opinion.. it immediately assumes a Purpose.. something that the Universe doesn’t have.

Purpose is only applicable to complex self perpetuating homeostatic systems like biological organisms, machines, communication and cultural institutions. It simply is not a term that can be used with things like "universes" because they do not perpetuate themselves or have any sort of homeostatic interactions.

Purpose is succinctly defined as a property of interactions and components in a system which serve to maintain it in general homeostasis. Your leg has a purpose in allowing you to walk, which allows you to get food, which allows you to mate and have children which also walk.. get food, etc.

Applying the word "purpose" to objects which do not exhibit purposeful (or complex homeostatic behavior) is a category error.

The common assumption that such objects necessarily need "purpose" is an artifact of the way our minds work, nothing more. Human minds see the effects of "agency", or the effects of purposeful acts by living things even when they are not there. Pyramids on mars, the Thunder God, the little men inside the TV who draw the pictures, etc. This is the result of how our minds work, not how reality actually is.

Detecting the effects of activities of animals and especially other human beings is such an important skill, that we apply it to everything, even those things for which it is inapplicable. Since false negatives can be very dangerous (you don't notice that an animal is around, or that another human is up to something) and false positives are typically not.. we continu to see agency even when it isn't there.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Lightson

Jim, et al.,
I was contemplating worldview coherence as pertains to love and beauty.

I there any reason why when I feel overwhelmed by good feelings of love or the sublime that I should attribute this to God? Does the fact that we appreciate things like oceans and sunsets bespeak the Christian worldview and some specialized "internal coherence "? I seem to want to argue that these do support a coherence in our worldview.

What can the atheist argue? Is there any evolutionary reason why we should enjoy Mozart, not to mention the survival-of-the-fittest need to invent music in the first place? Perhaps I am biased when I look at a sunset, in that I am thankful to my creator for giving me life, breath and eyes to behold the sunset. Perhaps atheists don't enjoy sunsets. Or if they do, perhaps the beauty and filling of the experience is somehow diminished because they have no God to share it with nor to be thankful to. I know that because God indwells me, my experience has far greater value than should we have just appeared accidentally on the planet from slime.

That is nicely put.

But without believing in a God being responsible I get all these same feelings. I often think isn’t nature amazing. It would be easy to substitute nature for a God.. but then I would have to believe the same God was also responsible for hate and ugliness and then it starts to lose sense. I never quite understand why God gets Kudos for the Good but man and nature are blamed for the bad ?

 

[Hilston]

God is not responsible ...

God is not responsible ...

Aussie writes:

... but then I would have to believe the same God was also responsible for hate and ugliness ...

This is a false concept. The word "responsible" connotes liability, accountability, and answering to a higher standard. If God is the absolute sovereign and authority, then He answers to no one, is liable to no one and answers to no higher standard. Therefore, "responsibility" cannot be assigned to God. Who will hold an absolute sovereign responsible? It is conceptually inapplicable.

Aussie writes:

... and then it starts to lose sense. I never quite understand why God gets Kudos for the Good but man and nature are blamed for the bad ?

Because man does bad things. God does all things for His own good pleasure, of His own prerogative, and with sufficient justification. No man has a legitimate complaint against God for anything He does because everything He does, be it blessing or calamity, is completely justified.

Jim

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
But without believing in a God being responsible I get all these same feelings. I often think isn’t nature amazing. It would be easy to substitute nature for a God.. but then I would have to believe the same God was also responsible for hate and ugliness and then it starts to lose sense. I never quite understand why God gets Kudos for the Good but man and nature are blamed for the bad ?

If you stand within your paradigm (God does not exist), it is easy to make such observations and to get the sense that God is somehow culpable. When you provide your own standard of measure, call God into court and judge Him, then you can easily dismiss Him as not measuring up to your standard.

As Jim argued

God does all things for His own good pleasure, of His own prerogative, and with sufficient justification. No man has a legitimate complaint against God for anything He does because everything He does, be it blessing or calamity, is completely justified.

I have some of my own thoughts to add which make sense to me. But first, a word about paradigm coherence. It is easy to dismantle one model while operating from within another model. When it comes to world views, the best approach is to get wholly within the paradigm to be tested and then work to understand how coherent it is within itself and with respect to reality.

The reality is that there is much beauty in our world and also much pain and suffering. I believe the beauty of the physical and spiritual realities undergird my concept of God. But what about the ugliness we see? Does this suggest God does not exist or that if God does exist, He is somehow responsible?

I believe God does exist. To start without God is to accept that my life has as much value as a log for the fire. I am an accident of time, space and energy. My life apppears for a short moment, as it were some water vapor, and then it is gone.

I also observe that there is pain and suffering; that is reality. Volumes have been written in attempt to resolve the fact of suffering with a God who is good. For Christians who hold to the latter, our faith is often tested on precisely this point. It is not too hard to believe in a good God who allows pain in the abstract. It is more difficult when that pain comes home.

It is harder for me to accept that pain has no reason. As I consider the WWII ethnic atrocities,and that millions were butchered, it pains me to think that their lifes were snuffed out with about as much concern as one would smash a cigarette butt. And what about justice. Those who perpetrated these crimes will get away with them. What possible recourse could human courts take to make any balance of justice return to the universe? This concept gives me encouragement. When bad guys do their thing, God is watching. God's lack of action is intended to give them room to change their mind and make a better choice, but at the end our days, there will come a time of accountability. For every action there is an equal and oppostion reaction and I think this applies to moral actions as well. God is powerful enough to hold all of mankind accountable for actions we have taken. The universe is grossly out of balance morally. If God is just, then all of this imbalance will one day, perhaps millenia in the future, be brought back into balance. All pain and suffering will be met with some sort of divine recognition.

So instead of blaming God for allowing bad things, I look to Him in hope that He will set everything right.

 

[heusdens]

Think about everything that does or can exist. Including your most favourite God and Deities. Suppose and assume now, that all this, would have not existed, that nothing would exist.
Now, if that would be the case, there would be no thing, no principle and no change or transition possible. Nothing can not provide substance, cause or reason for there being a world in the first place.
The issue of why is there a world, therefore, as a theoretical and hypothetical question, has no theoretical answer. However, the question itself is far from being unanswerable. This is because it is we/us that raise the question, it is us/we that exist, and it is us/we that witness there is a world (in whatever form or substance) which exists.
Even when not knowing anything at all, we can reason from no more as those trivial facts that because the world exists (in whatever form or substance) now, this must have been always the case, without exception. This therefore excludes the possibility that, for example
- the world came into existence without there being a world before
- or the world was created by a deity
We can only and factually state that there has always been a world.
The question is only: what is it that the world in essential instance and essential way is?
Our statement was just that we witness there is a world now. Either all of what the world is, exists within our consciousness, or we have to assume that something outside, apart from and independend of our consciousness exists.
We must assume the latter, cause assuming the first contradicts the fact that we can not find any reason or cause within our own consciousness for our consciouss existence itself.

Thus: in primary instance there must be something else, which has existed always, and which is independend, outside and apart from our consciousness.

That substance we call matter

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by heusdens
Think about everything that does or can exist. Including your most favourite God and Deities. Suppose and assume now, that all this, would have not existed, that nothing would exist.
.....
Even when not knowing anything at all, we can reason from no more as those trivial facts that because the world exists (in whatever form or substance) now, this must have been always the case, without exception. This therefore excludes the possibility that, for example
- the world came into existence without there being a world before
- or the world was created by a deity
We can only and factually state that there has always been a world

You loose me Rob. You original presupposition is that "nothing would exist" to include God. Then you neatly and cleverly show that such "excludes the possibility" that "the world was created by a deity". Very circular.

I will grant you that nothing comes from nothing. If God does not exist then you are right that matter has always been. This satisfies the first law of thermodynamics. But the second law is still there. Disorganized matter does not organize itself. Life does not spontaneously generate itself. If nothing else, common sense should tell you this. Your argument that "look, here we are" is no proof that life was generated from confusion, despite all your postulating. Without God you have no case. Without God we are all irrelevent specks, destined for dust and oblivion.

You are drawn to these forums because they give you some sort of satisfaction. I can appreciate that. But without God, your interest is for nothing. Because you and your interest in polemics will fade away like the morning dew.

Please Rob. You are smarter than that. You have great intellect. It just didn't happen - you are no accident. Your brain and its great capacity for abstract thought were put there by a like-minded being who wanted you to conceive of Him and return to Him in mind, spirit and body. In short, you were created for a great deal more than wasting away your hours hobnobbing with a bunch of theists.

Please consider Jesus: His words and His life's record. He is worthy or your consideration and your life's devotion. Come on over to our side; we could really use a man of your abilities. Accept Christ as your savior and friend and discover the true purpose for your existence. You would find the Christian life challenging and fulfilling.

 

[Clete]

Jim,

I read the first post on page 23 as you suggested, and while I agree that it is a brilliant argument to use against an atheist or any opponent the Christian world view, I'm not sure that I would come to the point of saying that if someone doesn't use this argument that they have automatically lost the debate! At worst Bob might be rightly acussed of making a less effective argument than he could have, but that only means that he's human, not wrong!

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by LightSon
You loose me Rob. You original presupposition is that "nothing would exist" to include God. Then you neatly and cleverly show that such "excludes the possibility" that "the world was created by a deity". Very circular.

Yes. And at the same time, when one states at the first premise that a Creator exists, and from there builts up a viewpoint of reality, and reasoning and arguing from that point of view always concludes: a Creator exists. Neither that proofs something, cause the conclusion was already put in as the premise.

I have no urge or necessity and am not raised with any concept of there being a Creator. So, it is quite natural for me to built up my thoughts about reality in a fundamental different way.

I could have left out the unnecessary addition that when there is nothing , this also includes the inexistence of God, since the statement that nothing exists already implies that.
But the theist argument would have lead you to probably arbitrarily introduce a creator at that point, who creates a world from nothing.
This is of course unreasonable. The assumption that there is nothing, does not permit there being deities either.

The strength of the argument is that it in fact provides an answer to why it is that there is a material world in the first place, without the need for introducing anything arbitrarily. We have no grounds for introducing anything arbitrarily, which means, that we should do without.

I will grant you that nothing comes from nothing. If God does not exist then you are right that matter has always been. This satisfies the first law of thermodynamics. But the second law is still there. Disorganized matter does not organize itself. Life does not spontaneously generate itself. If nothing else, common sense should tell you this. Your argument that "look, here we are" is no proof that life was generated from confusion, despite all your postulating. Without God you have no case. Without God we are all irrelevent specks, destined for dust and oblivion.

Even in anorganic matter, there are spontanious forms of structure and order arising. Take for instance galaxies. They supposedly are based on seeds of rimples that formed in the first nanoseconds after the Big Bang. The galaxies are organized structures of matter. The atoms are not flying around at random. A star is also a very structured material objects, and so are planets. It is a fundamental misunderstanding one has, if one argues that the universe is going to disorder. In fact wherever you look in the material world, we see progressive development.

Let us put in brief why the thermodynamic argument is invalid.
First it is stated that the universe is a closed system.
I could reason that this is not the case, but let us just assume that. A closed system means for the first law that the same amount of matter and energy would have to be there FOR ALL TIME. We can not arbitrarily let in any new matter or energy from outside. The second law says then, that the amount of usueable energy, would have to decrease.
But since there is no begin of the universe (it is a CLOSED thermodynamic system, so it can not have a begin; the matter and energy that exists now, must always have been there) this would mean that ALL the usueable energy of the universe would have already been used.

But... I look outside and I see that the sun still shines.
Contradiction!

In fact, it means that SOMEWHERE in our assumptions and reasoning we must have made a mistake. Since what we conclude from the assumptions, does not coincide with reality.

A closed thermodynamic system is however always a finite system that is isolated from the rest of the universe. But the universe is not finite. We can not use the definition of a closed system which is defined for finite systems only, and apply that to the universe. It simply does not work that way. You can not define a box of any size that would be large enough to fit the universe in.

For the universe therefore, the second law of thermodynamics does not apply as for finite closed systems. There is nothing that forbids the universe to become more ordered, and if you look around you well enough, you can see that there is progressive development. Undeniable!

You are drawn to these forums because they give you some sort of satisfaction. I can appreciate that. But without God, your interest is for nothing. Because you and your interest in polemics will fade away like the morning dew.

My reasoning system is built up on other premisis as yours. You are making the misjudgement that since I did not use the concept of God, there must be something missing in my reasoning.
I think it is the other way around. Your understanding of matter is incomplete. In first instance you deny matter the potential of being the primary essence of the world, being uncreatable and indestructable. Secondly, you are totally misunderstanding the laws that govern matter, and that enable progressive development within matter itself.

Since therefore you have a less then complete way of perceiving matter, you need a concept apart from matter, to in fact explain that the world is what it is, and how it develops.
But that is just a construct, and in fact artificial construct.
You don't miss something when you in fact try to see what matter is. Matter is the primary and essential thing about the world.
Without knowledge about matter is, we can never realy understand the world. Although matter is existence in objective form, we are all made from matter and were all developed by material processes that lasted billions of years. This is what makes matter into something realy incredible! If you can see that, you will never stop wondering about what the material world has to offer.

Please Rob. You are smarter than that. You have great intellect. It just didn't happen - you are no accident. Your brain and its great capacity for abstract thought were put there by a like-minded being who wanted you to conceive of Him and return to Him in mind, spirit and body. In short, you were created for a great deal more than wasting away your hours hobnobbing with a bunch of theists.

My reasoning capacity does not allow me even to envision the possibility of there being a creator. The reasons for that are quite clear and strong.

A conscious creator of the material world in total can on logical grounds not even exist.
I guess you never saw this argument before, but it is an inescapable conclusion.

The argument is this.
A conscious being is hypothized of being the creator of the material world in total. From that it follows that this being must have existed before there was any objective world. There was no matter, not even space or time.
Those conditions make it impossible for there being anything, which also includes a conscious being.

Therefore, a creation of the material world, could not have taken place, and a creation from nothing is same inconceivable.
This therefore means, that the material world must have existed always in whatever form.

Please consider Jesus: His words and His life's record. He is worthy or your consideration and your life's devotion. Come on over to our side; we could really use a man of your abilities. Accept Christ as your savior and friend and discover the true purpose for your existence. You would find the Christian life challenging and fulfilling.

There is nothing wrong with my life as it is, and I have my own challenges and fulfilment in life. I look for guidelines in life I am able of understanding myself, and I base myself on my own judgements and reasoning capacities. I have other people as Jesus to see as example.

 

[LightSon]

Rob,
Thank you for your thoughtful and courteous response.

I am challenged by your conviction on materialism, as in:

Originally posted by heusdens
The reasons for that are quite clear and strong.

Please do not take offense, but you must admit that your tenor rises to almost a religious dogmatism.

You have drawn a number of conclusions. There are also a number of false assumptions you are reasoning from. For example, you said "the universe is not finite". How do you know that? We've discussed this before. Just because our science is functionally ill-equipped to mark off the universe's boundaries, is no reason to conclude the universe has no edge. This is tantamount to arguing from silence.

It is no wonder that you have come to some wrong conclusions, despite the fact that your logic is nearly impeccable.

Originally posted by heusdens
The argument is this.
A conscious being is hypothized of being the creator of the material world in total. From that it follows that this being must have existed before there was any objective world. There was no matter, not even space or time.
Those conditions make it impossible for there being anything, which also includes a conscious being.

I understand how that makes sense to you, but again you are operating off faulty assumptions.

For you to draw conclusions about God reveals some ignorance. God is not subject to the tenets materialism but rather is transcendent over matter. Your philosophy makes matter the measure of all things. Consequently, you don't even have the necessary philosophical tools to apprehend to a God who is above matter.

It is true that before creation, there was no matter, time or space. Consequently you equate God with "nothing"; that is all your rudimentary tools afford. The reality of God is not bound by matter, time or space. The spiritual dimension is not readily perceived by the classical tools of science you are employing. God will not be put into a test tube for inspection.

If that is the level of scrutiny you require, then you will not see God. I am sorry that you cannot conceive of a God bigger than your own intellect. You have a keen grasp of matter, logic and abstract thought. Life is more than these. Without an understanding of the spiritual, your life will be lacking in the dimension for which you were created.

Respectfully.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by LightSon
Rob,
Thank you for your thoughtful and courteous response.

I am challenged by your conviction on materialism, as in:


Please do not take offense, but you must admit that your tenor rises to almost a religious dogmatism.

I know that my philosophical outlook sounds like that, but yet I have reasoned them through.
It is more that one is not very accustomized to see things from that perspective, while the theist arguments one hears every day, and they still play a role even in the most material sciences.
Helas.

You have drawn a number of conclusions. There are also a number of false assumptions you are reasoning from. For example, you said "the universe is not finite". How do you know that? We've discussed this before. Just because our science is functionally ill-equipped to mark off the universe's boundaries, is no reason to conclude the universe has no edge. This is tantamount to arguing from silence.

It is no wonder that you have come to some wrong conclusions, despite the fact that your logic is nearly impeccable.

I understand how that makes sense to you, but again you are operating off faulty assumptions.

It might not be a wrong conclusion.

Let me try to explain.
Of course we have observational horizons. We can not measure an infinite amount or distance or duration.

But look at it like this. Imagine an infinite line. Place a cross at any point on that line. Now proceed from that point, and place another cross at any other point of that line.
No matter how far you proceed, the distance you measure will always amount something finite.
So the fact that you can only observe a finite distance or duration, does not perse imply that therefore space and time are finite. Neither does this example itself proof they are infinite.

However, like I already explained, we can not think of a begin neither an end of the material world. There always has been matter and there always was motion and change. This already implies an infinite proces, without begin and end.

Now about my statement that the universe is not finite.
I should perhaps stated this in another way, since what we can reason is that matter itself, must be infinite.

Since the universe is nothing else as all the matter that constitues the uiverse in motion, in a wide range of existence forms and spatio-temporal relations with a wide range of material processes, this notion is therefore also the notion of an infinite universe.

The reasons why matter must be infinite are these:

1. Matter can exists in an infinite range of possible existence forms.
2. Matter neither has a begin nor an end in time, since changes and motion of matter never stops
3. There are uncreatable amount of spatio-temporal existence forms for an infinite amount of material processes, which is denoted as the infinity of spacetime.

The combination of all these three notions of matter form no doubt an infinite extend for matter.

And as an addition. Even a 1 cm of space-foam during 1 second, can form an infinity. Theoretical notions are that we have to consider a smallest unit of space and time, below which we can never observer anything. But the question is if the nature of space and time must therefore be that space and time are discrete things, or matter itself. There is no indication that this has to be the case, since the discreteness of spacetime would raise it's own problems.

For you to draw conclusions about God reveals some ignorance. God is not subject to the tenets materialism but rather is transcendent over matter. Your philosophy makes matter the measure of all things. Consequently, you don't even have the necessary philosophical tools to apprehend to a God who is above matter.

It is true that before creation, there was no matter, time or space. Consequently you equate God with "nothing"; that is all your rudimentary tools afford. The reality of God is not bound by matter, time or space. The spiritual dimension is not readily perceived by the classical tools of science you are employing. God will not be put into a test tube for inspection.

If that is the level of scrutiny you require, then you will not see God. I am sorry that you cannot conceive of a God bigger than your own intellect. You have a keen grasp of matter, logic and abstract thought. Life is more than these. Without an understanding of the spiritual, your life will be lacking in the dimension for which you were created.

Respectfully.

I am not alien as such to spiritual concepts. They are in fact realities, or levels of perspective. Neither this is perse alien to matter itself.

In fact, most rudimentary thoughts which are interpreted as a materialist vision, come down to explaining that 'everything is matter'. Yet matter is not everything there is to the world.

We need to of course consider that there are abstraction levels within the material world itself, which are in itself not in contradiction with the perspective that 'everything is material', but just add a more sensible description of a phenomena on some level of reality.

Consciousness can be described as material process, electric signals and chemincal compounds as that what is going on within the brain.

But it is obvious that that level of abstraction and perspective is totaly alien to what consciousness in fact is. You need to abstract from the low level perspective of matter, and need to consider high order abstractions. Thoughs are not made of atoms.

About the creator thing.

The notion of a creator in conscious form, which predated the existence of matter space and time, is not a possibility.
The existence forms of consciousness exclude the possibility of consciousness in the case that no material forms exist. To think necessitates that there is a material organ to think with, and necessitates energy take in. All that is impossible without there being any matter.

So, all there can be is the "idea" of a creator, which is therefore just a concept of mind. That is the flexibility of the mind itself, it can imagine and create things, which have no connection to the outside world. Our mind is a great tool for all kinds of activities. Philosophy, art, science. We have not yet explored all the creative potential of our minds, and should look for a best way of exploring these abilities further.
We are very equipped for dealing with this world, and have our future in our own hands. We better make good use of this potentiality.

 

[Hilston]

Just human?

Just human?

Hi Clete,

You write:

I read the first post on page 23 as you suggested, and while I agree that it is a brilliant argument to use against an atheist or any opponent the Christian world view, I'm not sure that I would come to the point of saying that if someone doesn't use this argument that they have automatically lost the debate!

It's about methodology and employing biblical principles. If one uses unbiblical methods to debate the atheist, one has lost. Both lose. It's not a matter of preferred strategy. It's a matter of being truthful and scriptural.

Clete writes:

At worst Bob might be rightly acussed of making a less effective argument than he could have, but that only means that he's human, not wrong! ...

Do you say the same thing about Benny Hinn and Robert Tilton, who use false healings to get converts? Are they wrong? Or just human?

Jim

 

[Hilston]

Don't bother ...

Don't bother ...

Reply to Jeremiah's Post #317

Jeremiah writes:

BTW, I am in favor of, and PREFER to take a biblical approach to answering atheists, in general. I am opposed to quoting scriptures to atheists who are APOSTATE former pastors of Christian Churches and or schools, who might use their knowledge of God's word to blaspheme His name or His character.

Why? No one in the Bible withheld the truth for that reason. It's not biblical, jeremiah. Besides, God can handle the cursing. He's not so delicate that we have to protect Him. Plus, there's that added bonus making God's justice against the atheist that much sweeter.

Jeremiah writes:

I just wanted to clarify my position to you and to others who might read only summations of my thoughts, and or out of context quotes of mine in this thread.

Thank for the clarification. You're still wrong. I've never heard such a ridiculous idea.

Jeremiah writes:

However unlike you, I do not rule out the possiblity and necessity of using either a biblical or an evidential approach to the best advantage and in accordance with my meager abilities.

Evidential = ANTI-biblical. Do you not rule out the ANTI-biblical approach?

Jeremiah writes:

... or if I was prompted by the Holy Spirit of God!

The Holy Spirit would never prompt you to use an unbiblical argument or method of debate to reach the lost.

Jeremiah writes:

... But right now I am led in the opposite direction, by the evidence, and the Spirit!

How do you know that?

Reply to Jeremiah's post #318

Jeremiah writes:

... Apostates have gone beyond the sin of the "unknown God", and the denial of who Jesus is. Apostates are people who once said, I know who God is, or they accepted at one time, that Jesus was "their Lord and their God."

This is so wrong. I know dozens of Catholics who would describe themselves as "knowing who God is" and say that Jesus is "their Lord and their God." If they were to leave the Catholic church and pursue atheism, there is no way I would consider them apostates. In fact, they are better off pursuing atheism than staying in the Catholic church. It is quite rare that I regard someone as an apostate.

Jeremiah writes:

... Preaching Jesus from the pulpit as the one true God, and as Lord and Saviour, and then apostasizing, is very different from saying, "I don't know who God really is", or "I don't think or believe that you are God."

I disagree. The only time I consider someone an apostate is when they aggressively oppose Paul's gospel. Other than that, they're all fair game.

Jeremiah writes:

Surely you see the difference, and why there is much more hope for the Pharisee Paul, who persecuted Stephen, and the Athenian ??? then there was for a Judas Iscariot.

It was obvious that Judas was an apostate. How is that obvious about Zakath?

Reply to Jeremiah's Post #319

Jeremiah writes:

We live in a world where the truth is compromised daily. We are sinners and every person we come in contact with is a sinner. If we "cause" or "lead someone into their temptation" then we are in some way responsible and may even be sinning ourselves.

How can we do this by quoting the scriptures or making biblical arguments? That's ridiculous. I can't wait to tell my friends that I've found someone who is afraid of quoting scriptures because he might be guilty of causing an apostate to curse God.

Jeremiah writes:

I have given my money to supposedly reformed alcoholics who asked me for food money.

That's not the same as quoting the scriptures and communicating truth by making biblical arguments.

Jeremiah writes:

I have given Zakath Bible verses in the past, and he has sinned with them.

I assure you that you have no guilt in the matter. This is ludicrous. I keep reading what you've written and I'm just befuddled. Where does this come from? How badly must you have been burned that you've come up with such a ridiculous notion?

Jeremiah writes:

There is nothing wrong with the Bible, it is the word of truth. But just as my generosity was turned into sin, some people turn the Word of God into sin. No matter how pure and how well intentioned we are.

This is plain laughable. Don't you realize that you are doing the right thing by giving people the truth of the word of God?

Jeremiah writes:

You make some good points, and obviously a lot of good hearted men have taken your main point seriously. But as Light Son said, that alone should give you serious pause to reconsider.

You lost me -- what exactly should give me serious pause?

Jeremiah writes:

There was a time when the Lord said through Amos. " Behold days are coming, When I will send a famine on the land. Not a famine for bread or a thirst for water, but rather for hearing the words of the Lord." If God chose times when he would withold His Word, why can't we choose a time when we will withhold His word, ...

This is ridiculous. We're not God. It's amazing to me that you are afraid of quoting the Bible out of fear that someone might not like it and curse God, yet, you presumptuously assume a posture of withholding God's word, a prerogative held exclusively by Him and for His own perfect purposes. I think your fear is misplaced.

Jeremiah writes:

... from those to whom it is no longer profitable ...

Where are you getting this stuff? It's absolutely ridiculous.

Jeremiah writes:

Sometimes it is profitable for them to hunger and thirst for it, for a season.

I'm convinced, jeremiah. I'm convinced that you really should not be sharing the Word of God with anyone. With a view such as you express here, you do more harm than good. Please, don't bother yourself at all. Just go back to your life and leave the sharing of God's Word to people who don't have such fatuous hangups.

Sheesh.

 

[Clete]

Re: Just human?

Re: Just human?

Originally posted by Hilston
Hi Clete,

...It's not a matter of preferred strategy. It's a matter of being truthful and scriptural.

Do you say the same thing about Benny Hinn and Robert Tilton, who use false healings to get converts? Are they wrong? Or just human?

Jim

Yours is not the only "truthful and scriptural" method for arguing Christianity! Its not as if Bob came up with all of these aguments he's using entirely on his own. Great Christian men like C.S. Lewis for example came along and brought thousands of people to Christ including atheists without using the arguments you suggest. Where they wrong too?
When someone read Mere Christianity and became a Christian because of it, did they both (C.S. Lewis and the reader) loose the debate that was raging in the readers mind before he came to Christ?


Both Benny and Robert are both human and wrong! My point was that being human doesn't make you wrong. Being wrong makes you human!

God Bless
Clete

 

[jeremiah]

To Jim:
I have never conversed with anyone on TOL who is as capable as you are, at misunderstanding almost every word that I post. Good bye Jim. I am sorry to say That I have wasted my time with you. :doh:
Now have fun and misunderstand and dissect these 50 words.

 

[Clete]

Jim,

You said to Jeremiah:
"Evidential = ANTI-biblical. Do you not rule out the ANTI-biblical approach?"


Giving evidence is not ANTI-biblical! It may be non-biblical or extrabiblical might be an even better term! But nothings wrong with showing someone extra biblical evidence for any truth, biblical or otherwise. Truth is truth whether its in the Bible or not! In other words the Bible contains truth but not all truth. If there is genuine astronomical evidence for the existance of God, for example, then that evidence will not contradict the Bible but it won't be in the Bible either.

You also said:

"The Holy Spirit would never prompt you to use an unbiblical argument or method of debate to reach the lost."

By "unbiblical" do you mean anti-biblical or extra biblical?
If anti-biblical, then I would agree (at least I think I do. I'll have to think that one over a little.)
If extra-biblical, then I would ask you to explain how thousand and thousand of people have been saved by the likes of C.S. Lewis and Josh McDowell. Who both used volumes of extra-biblical evidence in their ministries. Josh McDowell himself was persuaded by the extra-biblical evidence that he compilled in an effort to disprove Christianity!
His motives in fact were decidedly ANTI-biblical! And yet the Holy Spirit still managed to penetrate his heart. WOW! Looks like I don't agree with you anti-biblical position after all.

In any case your statement: "The Holy Spirit would never prompt you to use an unbiblical argument or method of debate to reach the lost." is I think unbiblical itself. The Bible nowhere prohibits the use of something other than the Bible itself for use in peruading unbelievers. In fact I don't recall the Bible regulating debate in any way except that we shouldn't be dishonest, pridefull, unethical, etc.

Clete

 

[Hilston]

Unbiblical = antibiblical

Unbiblical = antibiblical

Clete writes:

Yours is not the only "truthful and scriptural" method for arguing Christianity!

Mine? I'm not talking about a method that I originated. It originated with God, and was both taught and exampled by Moses, the prophets, the apostles, Paul, et al.

Clete writes:

It's not as if Bob came up with all of these aguments he's using entirely on his own. Great Christian men like C.S. Lewis for example came along and brought thousands of people to Christ including atheists without using the arguments you suggest. Where they wrong too?

Absolutely. Don't confuse the means with the ends. God uses Mormonism and Marilyn Manson to bring people to Christ, too. Did you completely miss the point about Benny Hinn and Robert Tilton?

Clete writes:

When someone read Mere Christianity and became a Christian because of it, did they both (C.S. Lewis and the reader) loose the debate that was raging in the readers mind before he came to Christ?

Often, bad arguments are persuasive. Logical fallacies are a problem because they are deceptively effective and people are often persuaded by them. But just because bad arguments often have good results doesn't mean we can use them without violating the scripture.

Clete writes:

Both Benny and Robert are both human and wrong! My point was that being human doesn't make you wrong. Being wrong makes you human!

Where do you get this, Clete. Jesus is human, but He was never wrong. Before Adam sinned, he was no less human. So you're wrong. Being wrong doesn't make one human.

Jim wrote: "Evidential = ANTI-biblical. Do you not rule out the ANTI-biblical approach?"

Clete writes:

Giving evidence is not ANTI-biblical!

I'm not referring to giving evidence, Clete. I'm talking about presenting an evidential apologetic, which is unbiblical. There is a biblical way to present evidence. Bob ain't doing it.

Clete writes:

It may be non-biblical or extrabiblical might be an even better term!

Anti-biblical is the correct term. Unbiblical is fine, as long as it isn't confused with extra-biblical.

Clete writes:

But nothings wrong with showing someone extra biblical evidence for any truth, biblical or otherwise.

I agree. Showing evidence isn't a problem. It's the method of showing evidence that is the problem.

Clete writes:

Truth is truth whether its in the Bible or not! In other words the Bible contains truth but not all truth.

I agree with you. Does that surprise you? If so, then you obviously do not understand my criticism and you should be asking questions and reading, instead of wasting your time attacking a straw man that doesn't exist.

Clete writes:

If there is genuine astronomical evidence for the existance of God, for example, then that evidence will not contradict the Bible but it won't be in the Bible either.

I have two questions. I'd like you to answer each one:

(a) Do you believe there is ANY evidence that contradicts the Bible? If so, give me an example. If not, then why would you even make such a sentence?

(b) How do you define "genuine evidence"?

Jim wrote: "The Holy Spirit would never prompt you to use an unbiblical argument or method of debate to reach the lost."

Clete writes:

By "unbiblical" do you mean anti-biblical or extra biblical?

I've covered this in earlier posts. The former.

Clete writes:

If extra-biblical, then I would ask you to explain how thousand and thousand of people have been saved by the likes of C.S. Lewis and Josh McDowell. Who both used volumes of extra-biblical evidence in their ministries. Josh McDowell himself was persuaded by the extra-biblical evidence that he compilled in an effort to disprove Christianity!
His motives in fact were decidedly ANTI-biblical! And yet the Holy Spirit still managed to penetrate his heart. WOW! Looks like I don't agree with you anti-biblical position after all.

You've made the common mistake of justifying the ends by the means. This is why math instructors say, "Show your work." Why? Because having the right answer doesn't necessarly mean that you have adequate understanding of the problem. There are dozens of people who got saved and went into the ministry as a result of Dan Barker's 19 years in the ministry. He is now an atheist activist who uses his knowledge of the Bible to convince people that it isn't true. Do those conversions merit any favor from God for Dan Barker? Of course not. The end does not justify the means.

Clete writes:

In any case your statement: "The Holy Spirit would never prompt you to use an unbiblical argument or method of debate to reach the lost." is I think unbiblical itself.

Oh, so the Holy Spirit DOES prompt people to use unbiblical methods to reach the lost? Yes or no.

Clete writes:

... The Bible nowhere prohibits the use of something other than the Bible itself for use in peruading unbelievers.

Duh. Since we both agree with that statement, where do you plan to go next? Maybe you should go back and read some of the discussion that preceded this. Or at least ask a direct question rather than jumping to erroneous conclusions.

Clete writes:

In fact I don't recall the Bible regulating debate in any way except that we shouldn't be dishonest, pridefull, unethical, etc.

There is a biblical way to answer the gainsayer, whatever the subject. The manner taught in scripture is logical and consistent with its teaching throughout. The method that evidentialists employ not only violates the manner instructed in scripture, but is inconsistent with its teaching throughout. If one studies the Bible's teaching on manner of debate, and the Bible's examples of debate, one finds wonderfully effective, logical and consistent method that applies in all situations.

Jim

 

[Hilston]

What did I misunderstand?

What did I misunderstand?

jeremiah,

I have never conversed with anyone on TOL who is as capable as you are at misunderstanding almost every word that I post.

I'm only going by the words you type. Give me an example of what I've misunderstood and I'll tell you why I understood it the way I did.

Jim

 

[Hilston]

Certitude and unwarranted assumptions ...

Certitude and unwarranted assumptions ...

Reply to Mr Jack's post #342:

Hi Mr Jack

Jim wrote: Anyone who claims otherwise should be prepared to somehow provide, apart from the existence of God, the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience. This must be done without committing logical fallacies and begging crucial questions. I haven't seen it done yet and, as a Christian defending the theistic worldview, I don't really expect the problem to ever be surmounted by the anti-theistic mind.

Mr Jack writes:

I'm sorry, Hilston, but I don't see how that follows.

It follows if you want to be rational and if you're not afraid of engaging the fundamental epistemological questions. If you want to merely dismiss it, then fine, but don't pretend to be a freethinker if you avoid such matters.

Mr Jack writes:

Anyone with a basic grounding in philosophy rapidly discovers that there are limits to knowledge, as Kant so uneloquently showed in 'A Critique of Pure Reason'.

Is that your way of saying, "I don't have an answer?"

Mr Jack writes:

The theist holds as their basis that 'there is god', and build their world view from there.

The anti-theist holds as his basis that "there is no god" and builds his worldview from there. Now what? Now we try to ascertain whose worldview makes sense of the basic matters concerning man and his place in the world: Logic, Science, morality, etc. As I've shown, the anti-theistic worldview must actually borrow from the Christian worldview in order to live in accordance with these concepts.

Mr Jack writes:

The atheist holds as their basis that 'there is a real world, and it corresponds to our senses', and buils their world view from there.

How do you know it's true? Have you tested the correspondence between your senses and reality? How about your brain and its ability to correctly interpret the data from your sensory inputs? Have you calibrated it for correspondence with reality? The fact is, you can't know and you can't test them on the atheist worldview. The Christian has the answer and the confidence in their general reliability on the basis of God's existence and creation of us. The anti-theist has no assurance, and thus must blindly trust in their verity, a tenuous faith-based proposition in philosophical terms. Of course, the anti-theist doesn't really function this way, and is not consistent with his espoused worldview. He ends up assuming the verity of his senses and reason, without proof, and insodoing, he operates on borrowed capital, imposing the order and the laws of the Christian worldview upon his own.

Mr Jack writes:

Both must inevitable accept a limit to their knowledge. I see no reason to view one as more incoherant than the other (on this basis alone).

The Christian accepts the limit of his knowledge as being bounded and secured by God Himself. We have assurance in the reality of our experience based on His revelation. We know logic works and is universal because it reflects the rationality and attributes of God. We proceed, not on assumption, but on the certainty that the laws of science and of mathematics and of logic hold and will continue to hold because God is back of them. The atheist has no such certitude, and by proceeding on the unwarranted assumption that these laws are invariant, he becomes an epistemological parasite, feeding off of the Christian worldview for his survival.

Jim

 

[Flipper]

Logic, Science, morality, etc. As I've shown, the anti-theistic worldview must actually borrow from the Christian worldview

When did this become the exclusive provision of christianity? It seems to me that the principles of logic, math, and some proto-science were worked out by the decidedly pagan greeks, without recourse to gods in most cases.

You must, I presume, have a good reason for believing that only a Christian god gets to take credit for the rules as derived by man?