Naturalism, Logic And Reality (Courtesy of Ken Ham)
Posted by Pastoral Musings on May 29th, 2008
Naturalism, logic and reality
Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:
-
A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’
The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.
-
On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.
This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?
May 30th, 2008 at 5:37 am
That’s really silly.
Evolution does not state that we are here by random processes. What part of natural *selection* sound random to you, exactly?
Reality is that which can be sensed and correlated objectively. Simple.
[Translate]
May 29th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
That’s really silly.
Evolution does not state that we are here by random processes. What part of natural *selection* sound random to you, exactly?
Reality is that which can be sensed and correlated objectively. Simple.
[Translate]
May 30th, 2008 at 6:15 am
Jason,
It’s interesting to me that you consider it silly to say such a thing.
It’s really very simple: evolution is supposed to occur on a trial and error basis. Supposedly enough things happen correctly over time so that a beneficial mutation occurs. That is random. All the while “nature” selects that which benefit the most and is the strongest/fittest. Why skirt the issue? Just study with an open mind. Evolution is a theory. I.D. is a theory to a great extent. Scientifically, Creationism is a theory. The truth is this: origins cannot be explained scientifically because they cannot be reproduced. Origins belong to the science of history. It just so happens that God gave us a first-hand account of what happened…and it happened in an orderly – not random- fashion.
My response is a question for you. What is the basis for objectivity? How can you know anything is true apart from an absolute?
Finally, your use of the term objectively is actually a misuse. Objective means: 1. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
2. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
This means that one cannot be objective and “sense” something. That is, one cannot emote about subjects and still be objective. That which is objective is outside of us and absolute. You and I relate to nothing with total objectivity.
Just some thoughts.
Jason
[Translate]
May 29th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Jason,
It’s interesting to me that you consider it silly to say such a thing.
It’s really very simple: evolution is supposed to occur on a trial and error basis. Supposedly enough things happen correctly over time so that a beneficial mutation occurs. That is random. All the while “nature” selects that which benefit the most and is the strongest/fittest. Why skirt the issue? Just study with an open mind. Evolution is a theory. I.D. is a theory to a great extent. Scientifically, Creationism is a theory. The truth is this: origins cannot be explained scientifically because they cannot be reproduced. Origins belong to the science of history. It just so happens that God gave us a first-hand account of what happened…and it happened in an orderly – not random- fashion.
My response is a question for you. What is the basis for objectivity? How can you know anything is true apart from an absolute?
Finally, your use of the term objectively is actually a misuse. Objective means: 1. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
2. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
This means that one cannot be objective and “sense” something. That is, one cannot emote about subjects and still be objective. That which is objective is outside of us and absolute. You and I relate to nothing with total objectivity.
Just some thoughts.
Jason
[Translate]
May 30th, 2008 at 6:18 am
Jason,
Thanks again for stopping by.
Check out evolution at reference.com
“In 1901, de Vries presented his theory that mutation, or suddenly appearing and well-defined inheritable variation (as opposed to the slight, cumulative changes stressed by Darwin), is a force in the origin and evolution of species. Mutation in genes is now accepted by most biologists as a fundamental concept in evolutionary theory.
Since mutation is a random process, changes can be either useful, unfavorable, or neutral to the individual’s or species’ survival. However, a new characteristic that is not detrimental may sometimes better enable the organism to survive or leave offspring in its environment, especially if that environment is changing, or to penetrate a new environment—such as the development of a lunglike structure that enables an aquatic animal to survive on land (see lungfish), where there may be more food and fewer predators.”
Perhaps you need to study a little more before you speak disparagingly of other’s beliefs.
Sincerely,
Jason
[Translate]
May 29th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Jason,
Thanks again for stopping by.
Check out evolution at reference.com
“In 1901, de Vries presented his theory that mutation, or suddenly appearing and well-defined inheritable variation (as opposed to the slight, cumulative changes stressed by Darwin), is a force in the origin and evolution of species. Mutation in genes is now accepted by most biologists as a fundamental concept in evolutionary theory.
Since mutation is a random process, changes can be either useful, unfavorable, or neutral to the individual’s or species’ survival. However, a new characteristic that is not detrimental may sometimes better enable the organism to survive or leave offspring in its environment, especially if that environment is changing, or to penetrate a new environment—such as the development of a lunglike structure that enables an aquatic animal to survive on land (see lungfish), where there may be more food and fewer predators.”
Perhaps you need to study a little more before you speak disparagingly of other’s beliefs.
Sincerely,
Jason
[Translate]
May 30th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
pastoralmusings,
Is accurately sensing the world around you beneficial to survival?
I think you would agree that it is.
Then according to the evolutionary model, isn’t it true that such a thing would be selected for?
I can’t see how you would disagree.
Then, logically, shouldn’t our senses be accurate, albeit imperfect, reflections of the real world?
Now your explanation for objectivity, on the other hand, is a merry-go-round of circular reasoning. Can you say for a fact that your god isn’t simply deceiving you into thinking you know what you know and sense what you sense? If your god is omnipotent, then he’s certainly capable. If you say, “Well, God is loving, so he wouldn’t do that,” I would ask, “How do you know he’s loving?” Perhaps he’s merely making you think that he’s loving. Perhaps he created you four seconds ago in your current form, memories, body, emotions, beliefs, everything.
So you see, Christian theology doesn’t magically remove the objectivity problem. Your claim that the existence of a god enables objectivity is itself a subjective claim based upon your own beliefs.
You say, “You and I relate to nothing with total objectivity.” Why does this not apply to Christian prophets and holy men who claimed to speak with God and see visions, upon which your entire religion is based?
[Translate]
May 30th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
pastoralmusings,
Is accurately sensing the world around you beneficial to survival?
I think you would agree that it is.
Then according to the evolutionary model, isn’t it true that such a thing would be selected for?
I can’t see how you would disagree.
Then, logically, shouldn’t our senses be accurate, albeit imperfect, reflections of the real world?
Now your explanation for objectivity, on the other hand, is a merry-go-round of circular reasoning. Can you say for a fact that your god isn’t simply deceiving you into thinking you know what you know and sense what you sense? If your god is omnipotent, then he’s certainly capable. If you say, “Well, God is loving, so he wouldn’t do that,” I would ask, “How do you know he’s loving?” Perhaps he’s merely making you think that he’s loving. Perhaps he created you four seconds ago in your current form, memories, body, emotions, beliefs, everything.
So you see, Christian theology doesn’t magically remove the objectivity problem. Your claim that the existence of a god enables objectivity is itself a subjective claim based upon your own beliefs.
You say, “You and I relate to nothing with total objectivity.” Why does this not apply to Christian prophets and holy men who claimed to speak with God and see visions, upon which your entire religion is based?
[Translate]
May 30th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Jon,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
“Is accurately sensing the world around you beneficial to survival? I think you would agree that it is. Then according to the evolutionary model, isn’t it true that such a thing would be selected for? I can’t see how you would disagree.”
I would not disagree if there were such a thing as natural selection/survival of the fittest.
I do not think that I denied that our senses can be relatively accurate perceptions of the world about us. That does not mean that I live with total objectivity. The fact that we wish for total objectivity speaks for something, though, doesn’t it? It lets us know that there is an idea; if you will, an absolute, objective somewhere, or in someone. You do not hunger for something that does not exist. Hunger exists because nourishment exists.
“Christian theology doesn’t magically remove the objectivity problem. Your claim that the existence of a god enables objectivity is itself a subjective claim based upon your own beliefs.”
Ah,but I don’t expect anything to be magically removed. That is the problem with many who oppose Christianity. They think that we are all country bumpkins who know absolutely nothing of which we speak. That is not necessarily so. I may not be the brightest light in the house, but I do think a little better than that. I do hope that the profs at the University of MD did not give you such foolish ideas. If so, they should lose their tenure.
My beliefs are indeed subjective. They are subject to the object of their trust….God…the ABSOLUTE ONE. I do believe that you know that you cannot absolutely state that He does not exist. To do so would mean that you were everywhere at once and know all things. That being so, you would be omnipresent and omniscient, thus being GOD.
Why does my statement about our not relating to everything with total objectivity not apply to Christian prophets and holy men? Because there was something that went further than simple, subjective experiences with them. These men spoke and wrote as they were carried along by the power of God. They were supervised, you might say, that they would perfectly record what was revealed to them. http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Pe/2Pe001.html#16
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Pe/2Pe001.html#16
Read verses 16-21 in the above referenced passages.
By the way, my religion is based upon more than visions and men who spoke with God. Christianity is based upon the historical facts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ who revealed God to us.
Thanks again for stopping by.
Jason
[Translate]
May 30th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Jon,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
“Is accurately sensing the world around you beneficial to survival? I think you would agree that it is. Then according to the evolutionary model, isn’t it true that such a thing would be selected for? I can’t see how you would disagree.”
I would not disagree if there were such a thing as natural selection/survival of the fittest.
I do not think that I denied that our senses can be relatively accurate perceptions of the world about us. That does not mean that I live with total objectivity. The fact that we wish for total objectivity speaks for something, though, doesn’t it? It lets us know that there is an idea; if you will, an absolute, objective somewhere, or in someone. You do not hunger for something that does not exist. Hunger exists because nourishment exists.
“Christian theology doesn’t magically remove the objectivity problem. Your claim that the existence of a god enables objectivity is itself a subjective claim based upon your own beliefs.”
Ah,but I don’t expect anything to be magically removed. That is the problem with many who oppose Christianity. They think that we are all country bumpkins who know absolutely nothing of which we speak. That is not necessarily so. I may not be the brightest light in the house, but I do think a little better than that. I do hope that the profs at the University of MD did not give you such foolish ideas. If so, they should lose their tenure.
My beliefs are indeed subjective. They are subject to the object of their trust….God…the ABSOLUTE ONE. I do believe that you know that you cannot absolutely state that He does not exist. To do so would mean that you were everywhere at once and know all things. That being so, you would be omnipresent and omniscient, thus being GOD.
Why does my statement about our not relating to everything with total objectivity not apply to Christian prophets and holy men? Because there was something that went further than simple, subjective experiences with them. These men spoke and wrote as they were carried along by the power of God. They were supervised, you might say, that they would perfectly record what was revealed to them. http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Pe/2Pe001.html#16
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Pe/2Pe001.html#16
Read verses 16-21 in the above referenced passages.
By the way, my religion is based upon more than visions and men who spoke with God. Christianity is based upon the historical facts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ who revealed God to us.
Thanks again for stopping by.
Jason
[Translate]
May 30th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Jon,
One thing I forgot to address in my response to you is this:
“Can you say for a fact that your god isn’t simply deceiving you into thinking you know what you know and sense what you sense? If your god is omnipotent, then he’s certainly capable. If you say, “Well, God is loving, so he wouldn’t do that,” I would ask, “How do you know he’s loving?” Perhaps he’s merely making you think that he’s loving. Perhaps he created you four seconds ago in your current form, memories, body, emotions, beliefs, everything.”
C.S. Lewis stated that “Nonsense remains nonsense even if we talk it about God.”
The fact is this: Your experience tells you that we were not created four seconds ago with complete memories, et al. First of all, we know we were there because we experienced those things. Not only did we experience the things we remember, but often there are those who witnessed the things we experienced and remember so that we have a sort of testimony on which we can base our memories…even correct them if need be. Second, it is indeed nonsense to speak in the way you spoke, because if I were created four seconds ago with complete memories, they would not be memories, but fabrications.
Whatever we do, we must speak sensibly if we are to dialogue.
Regards,
Jason
[Translate]
May 30th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Jon,
One thing I forgot to address in my response to you is this:
“Can you say for a fact that your god isn’t simply deceiving you into thinking you know what you know and sense what you sense? If your god is omnipotent, then he’s certainly capable. If you say, “Well, God is loving, so he wouldn’t do that,” I would ask, “How do you know he’s loving?” Perhaps he’s merely making you think that he’s loving. Perhaps he created you four seconds ago in your current form, memories, body, emotions, beliefs, everything.”
C.S. Lewis stated that “Nonsense remains nonsense even if we talk it about God.”
The fact is this: Your experience tells you that we were not created four seconds ago with complete memories, et al. First of all, we know we were there because we experienced those things. Not only did we experience the things we remember, but often there are those who witnessed the things we experienced and remember so that we have a sort of testimony on which we can base our memories…even correct them if need be. Second, it is indeed nonsense to speak in the way you spoke, because if I were created four seconds ago with complete memories, they would not be memories, but fabrications.
Whatever we do, we must speak sensibly if we are to dialogue.
Regards,
Jason
[Translate]
June 1st, 2008 at 5:42 am
Wishing for things is itself a subjective and emotional endeavor. The simple fact that people wish for things doesn’t mean those things are true or real or will ever be true or real.
This is a statement of faith.
I’m afraid that no non-Christian historical sources validate these claims.
You’re playing with words here. I clearly meant that he created you four seconds ago with false memories, memories you only think are real, but which were actually implanted into your mind at creation. This hypothetical god can manipulate your sense experiences at a whim and without your knowledge. He can do this so perfectly that you cannot detect it. He is a god, after all.
My point is this: Despite what Christian culture tells you, there’s nothing inevitable or logically necessary about the Christian god as opposed to any other variety. This is simply a belief that you’ve inherited and were taught because it strengthens your faith. And it’s the same belief that Muslims are taught to have about Allah, and Jews about Yahweh, and so on. It’s a belief that (in your eyes) puts your faith on a firm ground. And that’s why evangelists teach it.
[Translate]
June 1st, 2008 at 3:42 am
Wishing for things is itself a subjective and emotional endeavor. The simple fact that people wish for things doesn’t mean those things are true or real or will ever be true or real.
This is a statement of faith.
I’m afraid that no non-Christian historical sources validate these claims.
You’re playing with words here. I clearly meant that he created you four seconds ago with false memories, memories you only think are real, but which were actually implanted into your mind at creation. This hypothetical god can manipulate your sense experiences at a whim and without your knowledge. He can do this so perfectly that you cannot detect it. He is a god, after all.
My point is this: Despite what Christian culture tells you, there’s nothing inevitable or logically necessary about the Christian god as opposed to any other variety. This is simply a belief that you’ve inherited and were taught because it strengthens your faith. And it’s the same belief that Muslims are taught to have about Allah, and Jews about Yahweh, and so on. It’s a belief that (in your eyes) puts your faith on a firm ground. And that’s why evangelists teach it.
[Translate]
June 1st, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Jon,
Thanks again for stopping by. I am enjoying this dialogue. I hope that you will see that I am being straight forward, but want to be nice and kind. Sometimes it is difficult to convey this when we disagree. It is especially difficult when we are at keyboards with a great degree of anonymity. I hope that we shall both benefit from our exchange.
“Wishing for things is itself a subjective and emotional endeavor. The simple fact that people wish for things doesn’t mean those things are true or real or will ever be true or real.”
Have you ever hungered for expternitopingtonsbirps? Of course not. It’s not real, so you have no hunger for it. You only desire that which is real or has real components about it. That cannot be denied.
“This is a statement of faith.”
You have no faith? Faith in its purest form is simply believing facts. You cannot discount something so easily as that. You have faith in things you have never seen….such as the people who designed and built the components of your car. Yet you believe in them and trust them with your life. It is a very flawed presupposition that discounts faith.
“I’m afraid that no non-Christian historical sources validate these claims.”
In other word, Christian historical sources are all biased and incorrect? You would not appreciate my implying that of all secular historical source. Neither will I imply that. It is another flawed presupposition that assumes that, because one is a member of a certain party, they are automatically wrong on everything that supports their claims.
“You’re playing with words here. I clearly meant that he created you four seconds ago with false memories, memories you only think are real, but which were actually implanted into your mind at creation. This hypothetical god can manipulate your sense experiences at a whim and without your knowledge. He can do this so perfectly that you cannot detect it. He is a god, after all.”
Again, nonsense is nonsense even when we speak it about God. Jon, you know that our memories are real, because they are valid recollections of our experiences and are often verified by witnesses. No, I was not created four seconds ago. My memories are the results of my experiences…I was THERE to experience what I remember. So were you. It seems that you’re the one who wants to play with words in order to make an invalid point.
“My point is this: Despite what Christian culture tells you, there’s nothing inevitable or logically necessary about the Christian god as opposed to any other variety. This is simply a belief that you’ve inherited and were taught because it strengthens your faith. And it’s the same belief that Muslims are taught to have about Allah, and Jews about Yahweh, and so on. It’s a belief that (in your eyes) puts your faith on a firm ground. And that’s why evangelists teach it.”
I will grant that, to some degree, the philosophical and inherent evidence does not point to the Christian God, but simply a Supreme Being. On the other hand, that BEING has revealed Himself on the stage of history in Jesus. The historicity of Jesus cannot be denied, Jon. Do not be so foolish as to try that old, worn out trick. Anyway, the burden of proof rests upon you to prove the non-necessity of God. You’ve tried to put the ball in my court all along, but you’re the challenger….fire away.
I do pray that you’ll examine the facts and see for yourself that this is true.
You will be amazed at the extreme joy you can experience by knowing God in His Son Jesus Christ.
Sincerely,
Jason
[Translate]
June 1st, 2008 at 10:37 am
Jon,
Thanks again for stopping by. I am enjoying this dialogue. I hope that you will see that I am being straight forward, but want to be nice and kind. Sometimes it is difficult to convey this when we disagree. It is especially difficult when we are at keyboards with a great degree of anonymity. I hope that we shall both benefit from our exchange.
“Wishing for things is itself a subjective and emotional endeavor. The simple fact that people wish for things doesn’t mean those things are true or real or will ever be true or real.”
Have you ever hungered for expternitopingtonsbirps? Of course not. It’s not real, so you have no hunger for it. You only desire that which is real or has real components about it. That cannot be denied.
“This is a statement of faith.”
You have no faith? Faith in its purest form is simply believing facts. You cannot discount something so easily as that. You have faith in things you have never seen….such as the people who designed and built the components of your car. Yet you believe in them and trust them with your life. It is a very flawed presupposition that discounts faith.
“I’m afraid that no non-Christian historical sources validate these claims.”
In other word, Christian historical sources are all biased and incorrect? You would not appreciate my implying that of all secular historical source. Neither will I imply that. It is another flawed presupposition that assumes that, because one is a member of a certain party, they are automatically wrong on everything that supports their claims.
“You’re playing with words here. I clearly meant that he created you four seconds ago with false memories, memories you only think are real, but which were actually implanted into your mind at creation. This hypothetical god can manipulate your sense experiences at a whim and without your knowledge. He can do this so perfectly that you cannot detect it. He is a god, after all.”
Again, nonsense is nonsense even when we speak it about God. Jon, you know that our memories are real, because they are valid recollections of our experiences and are often verified by witnesses. No, I was not created four seconds ago. My memories are the results of my experiences…I was THERE to experience what I remember. So were you. It seems that you’re the one who wants to play with words in order to make an invalid point.
“My point is this: Despite what Christian culture tells you, there’s nothing inevitable or logically necessary about the Christian god as opposed to any other variety. This is simply a belief that you’ve inherited and were taught because it strengthens your faith. And it’s the same belief that Muslims are taught to have about Allah, and Jews about Yahweh, and so on. It’s a belief that (in your eyes) puts your faith on a firm ground. And that’s why evangelists teach it.”
I will grant that, to some degree, the philosophical and inherent evidence does not point to the Christian God, but simply a Supreme Being. On the other hand, that BEING has revealed Himself on the stage of history in Jesus. The historicity of Jesus cannot be denied, Jon. Do not be so foolish as to try that old, worn out trick. Anyway, the burden of proof rests upon you to prove the non-necessity of God. You’ve tried to put the ball in my court all along, but you’re the challenger….fire away.
I do pray that you’ll examine the facts and see for yourself that this is true.
You will be amazed at the extreme joy you can experience by knowing God in His Son Jesus Christ.
Sincerely,
Jason
[Translate]
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:26 am
That doesn’t answer my criticism at all. Something that has ‘real components’ to it need not ever be real. Fiction has real components to it, and is by definition not real.
Categorizing all evidenced-based belief as faith is a little disingenuous, especially when on the topic of religion. My belief that I have a hand is stronger than my belief that the planet Neptune exists. I can see my hand, but I’ve only seen pictures of Neptune. The first requires only trusting my senses. The second requires trusting the telescope which took the picture. My belief that the planet Neptune exists is far more firm than your belief that a god exists. I have nothing except your insistence that a god exists. I don’t feel that a god exists. I don’t perceive that a god exists. I would have no indication that such a thing could exist, except for the insistence of others.
You misunderstand, I think. All historical sources are biased. It’s through a large collection of mutually supportive and independent historical texts that we get an accurate picture of the past. No such collection exists for the miracles of Jesus.
And by non-Christian sources, I don’t mean just secular sources. I mean Muslim sources, Jewish sources, Pagan sources, et cetera.
Heh, you’re not getting the gist of my argument at all, it seems. Of course you would say you were there to experience your memories. They wouldn’t be very good fabrications if you could simply tell that they were faked. But they were faked. And their realism is built right in. Because my hypothetical deity merely wishes you to think that they’re real. How else would he control you?
I disagree, but I find that a stunning admission from you nonetheless.
Jesus was likely a real person. Many non-Christian writers mention him, and a few mention his crucifixion. The problem is that none of these writers mention anything about miracles. Nothing about resurrections, nothing about healing the blind, nothing about raising the dead, nothing about walking on water. Surely the inclusion of a few historical facts (surely known by any learned man of the period) into a book like the Bible doesn’t validate every single claim it makes? That’s just silly.
[Translate]
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:26 am
That doesn’t answer my criticism at all. Something that has ‘real components’ to it need not ever be real. Fiction has real components to it, and is by definition not real.
Categorizing all evidenced-based belief as faith is a little disingenuous, especially when on the topic of religion. My belief that I have a hand is stronger than my belief that the planet Neptune exists. I can see my hand, but I’ve only seen pictures of Neptune. The first requires only trusting my senses. The second requires trusting the telescope which took the picture. My belief that the planet Neptune exists is far more firm than your belief that a god exists. I have nothing except your insistence that a god exists. I don’t feel that a god exists. I don’t perceive that a god exists. I would have no indication that such a thing could exist, except for the insistence of others.
You misunderstand, I think. All historical sources are biased. It’s through a large collection of mutually supportive and independent historical texts that we get an accurate picture of the past. No such collection exists for the miracles of Jesus.
And by non-Christian sources, I don’t mean just secular sources. I mean Muslim sources, Jewish sources, Pagan sources, et cetera.
Heh, you’re not getting the gist of my argument at all, it seems. Of course you would say you were there to experience your memories. They wouldn’t be very good fabrications if you could simply tell that they were faked. But they were faked. And their realism is built right in. Because my hypothetical deity merely wishes you to think that they’re real. How else would he control you?
I disagree, but I find that a stunning admission from you nonetheless.
Jesus was likely a real person. Many non-Christian writers mention him, and a few mention his crucifixion. The problem is that none of these writers mention anything about miracles. Nothing about resurrections, nothing about healing the blind, nothing about raising the dead, nothing about walking on water. Surely the inclusion of a few historical facts (surely known by any learned man of the period) into a book like the Bible doesn’t validate every single claim it makes? That’s just silly.
[Translate]
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Jon,
Thanks for writing. I do enjoy talking with you.
“That doesn’t answer my criticism at all. Something that has ‘real components’ to it need not ever be real. Fiction has real components to it, and is by definition not real.”
Fiction, by primary definition, is not true. That means, or course that there is truth. It also means that there is that which is not truth. Your response actually is an attempt to evade the issue by semantic manipulation.
“I have nothing except your insistence that a god exists. I don’t feel that a god exists. I don’t perceive that a god exists. I would have no indication that such a thing could exist, except for the insistence of others.”
You also have a well-organized universe, beauty, and the power that is evident in nature that testifies to an omnipotent, omniscient, and glorious God. If all of nature is the result of evolution, it would lead us to the logical conclusion that out of nothing came something by no cause, and that that nothing which by no cause came out of something, then by random forces and mutations became organized, and that all of this has no purpose, thus no meaning. Of course, we could then say that, since man is at this time at the top of the evolutionary ladder, he is the measure of all things. None of these things will necessarily lead to a logical, peaceful, harmonious world and society.
“Heh, you’re not getting the gist of my argument at all, it seems. Of course you would say you were there to experience your memories. They wouldn’t be very good fabrications if you could simply tell that they were faked. But they were faked. And their realism is built right in. Because my hypothetical deity merely wishes you to think that they’re real. How else would he control you?”
The reality that I’m stating is not simply my memories, but the corroborating testimony of those who experienced those things with me. We passed through those things together, and they are more than figments of our imagination. You cannot sustain this nonsense by any stroke of logic. It needs to be abandoned as a failed argument.
“I disagree, but I find that a stunning admission from you nonetheless.”
The fact that this is stunning may be attributed to the fact that you misunderstand Christian apologetics. Apologetics first deals with Theism. That is given to us in general revelation. That is, God reveals Himself to us in nature. Only special revelation (the incarnation of Christ and the Bible) give to us the understanding that the Creator is the Christian God.
“Surely the inclusion of a few historical facts (surely known by any learned man of the period) into a book like the Bible doesn’t validate every single claim it makes? That’s just silly.”
Silly? Why resort to ad hominem attacks?
The character of the ones who wrote the books of the Bible as well as the fact that they were contemporary with many people who could have proved them wrong, as well as the fact that they weren’t proved wrong, but died because of their faith (not something someone will often do because of an elaborately concocted fiction) testifies to the truthfulness of the Scriptures.
Fulfilled prophecies point to the truthfulness of Scriptures.
So, too, does the fact that, if it were an elaborately concocted fiction someone normally “bugs out” and confesses. No one did, that we know of. If they had, history would most likely have demonstrated that, because people wanted to show the Christian were wrong.
As I said before, the burden of proof lies on the challenger. Where is it? The challenge to the history of all of theism has given us factual support for the idea of non-theism. By nature of the argument, you must prove your case that God does not exist. Please do so.
Thanks again for writing.
Jason
[Translate]
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Jon,
Thanks for writing. I do enjoy talking with you.
“That doesn’t answer my criticism at all. Something that has ‘real components’ to it need not ever be real. Fiction has real components to it, and is by definition not real.”
Fiction, by primary definition, is not true. That means, or course that there is truth. It also means that there is that which is not truth. Your response actually is an attempt to evade the issue by semantic manipulation.
“I have nothing except your insistence that a god exists. I don’t feel that a god exists. I don’t perceive that a god exists. I would have no indication that such a thing could exist, except for the insistence of others.”
You also have a well-organized universe, beauty, and the power that is evident in nature that testifies to an omnipotent, omniscient, and glorious God. If all of nature is the result of evolution, it would lead us to the logical conclusion that out of nothing came something by no cause, and that that nothing which by no cause came out of something, then by random forces and mutations became organized, and that all of this has no purpose, thus no meaning. Of course, we could then say that, since man is at this time at the top of the evolutionary ladder, he is the measure of all things. None of these things will necessarily lead to a logical, peaceful, harmonious world and society.
“Heh, you’re not getting the gist of my argument at all, it seems. Of course you would say you were there to experience your memories. They wouldn’t be very good fabrications if you could simply tell that they were faked. But they were faked. And their realism is built right in. Because my hypothetical deity merely wishes you to think that they’re real. How else would he control you?”
The reality that I’m stating is not simply my memories, but the corroborating testimony of those who experienced those things with me. We passed through those things together, and they are more than figments of our imagination. You cannot sustain this nonsense by any stroke of logic. It needs to be abandoned as a failed argument.
“I disagree, but I find that a stunning admission from you nonetheless.”
The fact that this is stunning may be attributed to the fact that you misunderstand Christian apologetics. Apologetics first deals with Theism. That is given to us in general revelation. That is, God reveals Himself to us in nature. Only special revelation (the incarnation of Christ and the Bible) give to us the understanding that the Creator is the Christian God.
“Surely the inclusion of a few historical facts (surely known by any learned man of the period) into a book like the Bible doesn’t validate every single claim it makes? That’s just silly.”
Silly? Why resort to ad hominem attacks?
The character of the ones who wrote the books of the Bible as well as the fact that they were contemporary with many people who could have proved them wrong, as well as the fact that they weren’t proved wrong, but died because of their faith (not something someone will often do because of an elaborately concocted fiction) testifies to the truthfulness of the Scriptures.
Fulfilled prophecies point to the truthfulness of Scriptures.
So, too, does the fact that, if it were an elaborately concocted fiction someone normally “bugs out” and confesses. No one did, that we know of. If they had, history would most likely have demonstrated that, because people wanted to show the Christian were wrong.
As I said before, the burden of proof lies on the challenger. Where is it? The challenge to the history of all of theism has given us factual support for the idea of non-theism. By nature of the argument, you must prove your case that God does not exist. Please do so.
Thanks again for writing.
Jason
[Translate]
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Jon,
By the way……do you believe in truth?
If so, what is the standard by which we measure if something is true or not?
Jason
[Translate]
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Jon,
By the way……do you believe in truth?
If so, what is the standard by which we measure if something is true or not?
Jason
[Translate]