If you happen to have "choosinghats.blogspot.com" saved to your favorites, please change it now to www.choosinghats.com
We have moved to a new location and will not be updating this blog anymore.
See you at the new site!
BK
Comments are now Moderated
Due to a recent comment left on Choosing Hats, we have unfortunately had to turn comment moderation on. In this case, it was due to profane language.
It shouldn't take too much sense to realize that comments with profanity are not welcome on a site of this nature, but since there are some who haven't put two and two together, all comments will be approved before they show up on the site from here on out.
BK
It shouldn't take too much sense to realize that comments with profanity are not welcome on a site of this nature, but since there are some who haven't put two and two together, all comments will be approved before they show up on the site from here on out.
BK
Vacation
Thank you so much for visiting Choosing Hats. If you have not noticed, there have been a large number of new posts recently. The plans are to continue to post at this pace, however we will be taking a (hopefully) short break before we continue to do so.
We have some exciting new ideas we would love to share with you, just not yet.
Enjoy the recent posts, and stay tuned for more!
Enjoy the recent posts, and stay tuned for more!
"Homophobia" and Homosexuality
This is a conversation I had via the Internet with a homosexual atheist friend from my old school. He posted something online which listed some emotional examples of hate crimes against homosexuals and declared that homophobia is wrong. I decided to question him about his beliefs.
Me: I agree, of course, that the descriptions of how these people were treated is morally and emotionally disturbing. People are sick and hateful. I am glad that I was not raised to hate homosexuals. In the sense described here then, I certainly think that "homophobia" is childish and wrong.
The last line though, "who are we to judge?" interested me. I would say that homosexuality is wrong just like lying and thieving etc. are wrong. I am no better than any homosexual then, because I do things I know to be wrong. I judge these things wrong because they have already been deemed wrong by my Creator. While I agree that the things described here are wrong then (hatred of homosexuals and foul treatment), I also believe homosexuality to be wrong. I do not understand what basis someone would have for thinking homophobia to be wrong, but not homosexuality. Hopefully that makes sense.
Take care,
Chris
Atheist:"Judge not, lest ye be judged."
Me: Then we should not judge others for judging. See, that usage of the "judge not" saying is self-refuting, because it has to be pulled from its context in order to be used that way.
Besides, why use that part of Scripture (that is where the saying originates, even though it frequently is misunderstood and misused) while ignoring the many other passages that teach that homosexuality is wrong? I am not trying to be a jerk; it just does not make sense to me.
Take care,
Chris
Atheist:Because the vast majority of the scripture is untrustworthy. You know far better than I the arcane history of its compilation and writing (and rewriting to suit purposes). I choose to recognize the noble ideas proposed and learn from that wisdom, and not waste time and thought upon scripture.
Me: I am not sure you understand the trouble I am having understanding your position.
As far as I know, you affirm that:
Homophobia is wrong
and
homosexuality is not wrong.
I do not understand what basis you have for thinking homophobia to be wrong, and homosexuality not being wrong. You quoted to me, "Judge not, lest ye be judged", but this does not really provide a basis for the following reasons:
1. It is self-refuting, because you are judging that judging is wrong.
2. You broke the rule when you judged that homophobia is wrong, so it seems to me that you do not in practice appeal to this rule.
3. I do not see where there is a basis for believing that the statement "Judge not lest ye be judged" is objectively right.
I only mentioned Scripture to clarify that the statement originates from Scripture and within its original context does not have these problems. If you could clarify for me how you deal with these things to justify that homophobia is wrong and homosexuality is not wrong then it would go a long way in helping me to understand your position. Until then I am stuck with affirming that homophobia is wrong as well as homosexuality, since the Bible is my basis for morality and there are the above logical problems with rejecting this basis. I am not asking you to waste time and thought on Scripture, but rather to help me to understand your own position and how you justify your moral claims.
Also, there are a lot of injustices listed against homosexuals in what you posted. Again, I agree that most of these things listed are injustices and evil. I can say that because God provides a standard for justice by which I can judge things to be just or not. Since you reject this standard, I am curious as to what your standard for justice is?
As for your comments regarding Scripture, I do not agree. What is it about the Bible which makes you think that it is untrustworthy? What specific objections do you have about its origins? What specifically has been rewritten to suit purposes? Maybe if you describe more of what you mean I can understand. If not, that is okay too.
Chris
Atheist: A grain of truth becomes lost in a puddle of thought.
Me: How does that answer my question?
Atheist: You are over thinking.
Me: Not at all. I am beginning to think that you have not given any thought to why you say that some things are right and others are wrong, even though you reposted the same material again. It is not a hard question to answer for me, maybe it is for you.
Take care,
Chris
Me: I agree, of course, that the descriptions of how these people were treated is morally and emotionally disturbing. People are sick and hateful. I am glad that I was not raised to hate homosexuals. In the sense described here then, I certainly think that "homophobia" is childish and wrong.
The last line though, "who are we to judge?" interested me. I would say that homosexuality is wrong just like lying and thieving etc. are wrong. I am no better than any homosexual then, because I do things I know to be wrong. I judge these things wrong because they have already been deemed wrong by my Creator. While I agree that the things described here are wrong then (hatred of homosexuals and foul treatment), I also believe homosexuality to be wrong. I do not understand what basis someone would have for thinking homophobia to be wrong, but not homosexuality. Hopefully that makes sense.
Take care,
Chris
Atheist:"Judge not, lest ye be judged."
Me: Then we should not judge others for judging. See, that usage of the "judge not" saying is self-refuting, because it has to be pulled from its context in order to be used that way.
Besides, why use that part of Scripture (that is where the saying originates, even though it frequently is misunderstood and misused) while ignoring the many other passages that teach that homosexuality is wrong? I am not trying to be a jerk; it just does not make sense to me.
Take care,
Chris
Atheist:Because the vast majority of the scripture is untrustworthy. You know far better than I the arcane history of its compilation and writing (and rewriting to suit purposes). I choose to recognize the noble ideas proposed and learn from that wisdom, and not waste time and thought upon scripture.
Me: I am not sure you understand the trouble I am having understanding your position.
As far as I know, you affirm that:
Homophobia is wrong
and
homosexuality is not wrong.
I do not understand what basis you have for thinking homophobia to be wrong, and homosexuality not being wrong. You quoted to me, "Judge not, lest ye be judged", but this does not really provide a basis for the following reasons:
1. It is self-refuting, because you are judging that judging is wrong.
2. You broke the rule when you judged that homophobia is wrong, so it seems to me that you do not in practice appeal to this rule.
3. I do not see where there is a basis for believing that the statement "Judge not lest ye be judged" is objectively right.
I only mentioned Scripture to clarify that the statement originates from Scripture and within its original context does not have these problems. If you could clarify for me how you deal with these things to justify that homophobia is wrong and homosexuality is not wrong then it would go a long way in helping me to understand your position. Until then I am stuck with affirming that homophobia is wrong as well as homosexuality, since the Bible is my basis for morality and there are the above logical problems with rejecting this basis. I am not asking you to waste time and thought on Scripture, but rather to help me to understand your own position and how you justify your moral claims.
Also, there are a lot of injustices listed against homosexuals in what you posted. Again, I agree that most of these things listed are injustices and evil. I can say that because God provides a standard for justice by which I can judge things to be just or not. Since you reject this standard, I am curious as to what your standard for justice is?
As for your comments regarding Scripture, I do not agree. What is it about the Bible which makes you think that it is untrustworthy? What specific objections do you have about its origins? What specifically has been rewritten to suit purposes? Maybe if you describe more of what you mean I can understand. If not, that is okay too.
Chris
Atheist: A grain of truth becomes lost in a puddle of thought.
Me: How does that answer my question?
Atheist: You are over thinking.
Me: Not at all. I am beginning to think that you have not given any thought to why you say that some things are right and others are wrong, even though you reposted the same material again. It is not a hard question to answer for me, maybe it is for you.
Take care,
Chris
The video clip of Dan Barker objecting to his own book being quoted.
The other day I posted on a Barker vs White debate while it was going on. You may find the post here -
http://choosinghats.blogspot.com/2009/09/futility-of-unbelief.html
Dr. White has provided the video clip of the event -
Please make sure to visit www.aomin.org as Dr. White has posted a number of times on this rather strange incident.
http://choosinghats.blogspot.com/2009/09/futility-of-unbelief.html
Dr. White has provided the video clip of the event -
Please make sure to visit www.aomin.org as Dr. White has posted a number of times on this rather strange incident.
Answering Pastafarianism
It must be confessed that the postulation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has resulted in the creation of some rather humorous material on the Internet and elsewhere. See - http://www.venganza.org/
The FSM also has its place in certain philosophical discussions, though I am afraid that the number of such discussions is much lower than what the typical unbeliever apparently supposes. It is unfortunate that the FSM has been removed so far from its original context as to lose its function as an Overload Objection and to be used instead in thoughtless mockery.
The FSM is an imaginary hypothetical set forth to parallel theism. Whether or not this alleged parallel actually obtains may be a subject for debate, though when used against an argument like TAG it becomes quite clear that the nature of the Christian God needed for intelligibility is hardly comparable to the conception of the FSM. We may dismiss the submission of the FSM worldview as supplying the preconditions for intelligibility simply because we know it to be contrived. Indeed if it were not obviously contrived it would lose most of its argumentative force when injected into a traditional theistic argument. This leads to a second point, which is that the FSM is deliberately absurd. When the imaginary and absurd hypothetical of the FSM is utilized in an argument against the existence of God it is assumed that the same evidentiary status is to be assigned to both the hypothetical and to God which begs the question against the existence of God.
One wonders where the relevance of the FSM to God is to be found. The proposed analogy fails, and there is no argument to be found within the analogy anyway. If one insists upon utilizing FSM in argument even after the aforementioned problems have been raised then he or she is welcome to go ahead and provide an account of intelligibility from within the context of the FSM worldview. Christianity provides the preconditions for intelligibility whereas FSM cannot. In this respect FSM is not very much unlike the finite gods of antiquity which unbelievers likewise love to bring into debates about Christianity. The only thing FSM really adds to the discussion at hand when used out of accordance with its original intent is comicality. Latching onto and overusing this feature of FSM through mockery does not stimulate the intellect but rather tends to make it shallow.
Ramen.
The FSM also has its place in certain philosophical discussions, though I am afraid that the number of such discussions is much lower than what the typical unbeliever apparently supposes. It is unfortunate that the FSM has been removed so far from its original context as to lose its function as an Overload Objection and to be used instead in thoughtless mockery.The FSM is an imaginary hypothetical set forth to parallel theism. Whether or not this alleged parallel actually obtains may be a subject for debate, though when used against an argument like TAG it becomes quite clear that the nature of the Christian God needed for intelligibility is hardly comparable to the conception of the FSM. We may dismiss the submission of the FSM worldview as supplying the preconditions for intelligibility simply because we know it to be contrived. Indeed if it were not obviously contrived it would lose most of its argumentative force when injected into a traditional theistic argument. This leads to a second point, which is that the FSM is deliberately absurd. When the imaginary and absurd hypothetical of the FSM is utilized in an argument against the existence of God it is assumed that the same evidentiary status is to be assigned to both the hypothetical and to God which begs the question against the existence of God.
One wonders where the relevance of the FSM to God is to be found. The proposed analogy fails, and there is no argument to be found within the analogy anyway. If one insists upon utilizing FSM in argument even after the aforementioned problems have been raised then he or she is welcome to go ahead and provide an account of intelligibility from within the context of the FSM worldview. Christianity provides the preconditions for intelligibility whereas FSM cannot. In this respect FSM is not very much unlike the finite gods of antiquity which unbelievers likewise love to bring into debates about Christianity. The only thing FSM really adds to the discussion at hand when used out of accordance with its original intent is comicality. Latching onto and overusing this feature of FSM through mockery does not stimulate the intellect but rather tends to make it shallow.
Ramen.
"Does God Exist?" My Opening Statement (2006)
Opening Statement
"Does God Exist?"
Central Virginia Community College
February 2006
Thank you all for coming out for the debate and thanks to Alex and Dr. McGee for being willing to help with this. I’d also like to thank my God, in whom we live and move and have our being. I want to make it clear from the start that the God I am talking about today is the God of the Christian scriptures. That’s the only God I care to prove because He is the only God who actually exists. I am happy to join Alex in refuting any other gods.
A lot of people have told me that it is a tall order to try and prove God’s existence in ten minutes. While I was on the phone with my girlfriend Kerri the other night, she told me that she didn’t understand why I have to prove God’s existence because the evidence for His existence is perfectly clear. She’s right, if God exists then the evidence for Him must be abundant and plain. The Christian God makes this claim Himself. Psalm 19.1-4 says that
The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
Their measuring line goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.
So if a person denies that there is evidence for God’s existence, then they have denied the God of the Christian scriptures from the very start. The evidence is abundant and plain, every fact of existence attests to God’s glory. When I say evidence I am referring to all of the evidence that attests to God’s existence and person. This is not just referring to popular “proofs” for God’s existence but to God’s creation and God’s Word. Everything is evidence that God exists.
If the evidence for God’s existence is so abundant and plain and clear then everyone should believe in God. The truth is that even though some people deny it, everyone does believe in God. Romans 1.18-25 says that
The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!
So if a person denies that God exists or denies that there is evidence for His existence or denies that they know that God exists, they call God a liar. So God and non-Christians are not on good terms, so to speak. That’s why non-Christians try so hard to rationalize and create arguments against the God who made them. The reason that everyone does not claim to believe in God is because everyone is blinded by sin. Non-Christians suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
Everyone does not know God in a saving way. We can learn about our need for salvation and how to obtain it through the Word of God. God’s Word teaches us that we are all sinners. We have all done wrong in God’s eyes. We have failed to conform to God’s moral character. That is what we mean by sin. God did not decide to leave us alone to try and save ourselves. We cannot save ourselves; there is nothing good enough that we can ever do to merit forgiveness of our sins. We need Jesus to save us from our rebellion against God even in our thinking. To even question God’s authority is to sin against Him, and this sin needs the forgiveness that is only available through the blood that Christ shed while dying on the cross. God in His love sent His Son Jesus Christ into the world to die for sins so that whoever trusts in Jesus as personal Savior and Lord will be saved from their sin and will never die. This is how God shows His love towards us, in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us. This redemption is needed by every individual here today.
Now I’m sure that some of you are upset at this point because I’m calling you a sinner. Well, I am a sinner too, we all are. Just because something is offensive does not make it untrue. Others are upset because they realize that the outcome of this discussion does affect you. Whether or not God exists affects everything, even how you think of yourself. There are others who are upset that I’m using the Bible so much. There is a reason for this. When we examine our beliefs we find a governing principle, a final authority for everything that I will call a presupposition. A non-Christian tries to start with a false presupposition that they are in God’s position as a final judge of truth, even though they are finite and sinful. Non-Christians use arguments involving logic, science, and morality in order to try and make a case against God. There is a logical necessity attached to the presupposition of the God of the Bible, and rejecting this presupposition destroys any hope of having a solid foundation for things like knowledge and science and ethics. Without God as a precondition for everything, this universe and all that is in it, including the language we are communicating with now loses all intelligibility.
Non-Christians are forced to borrow from the Christian worldview because it is the only worldview which is true and accounts for logic, science, and morality. This is God’s world and man is created in God’s image. We can’t stand outside of God’s creation on some neutral ground and debate whether or not God exists because His existence will come to bear on our arguments. Even though unbelievers strive to suppress this truth, it cannot be removed from their being and so they argue as though they are the final authority of truth while actually borrowing from the Christian worldview in order to get anywhere. It is like someone standing on the stage and claiming through the microphone that the stage does not exist.
The Christian worldview is proven true by the impossibility of the contrary. This does not mean that Christianity is merely probable, or that it is the best explanation for the facts we have; it means that the Christian worldview is the only true one without question. The Christian worldview has no trouble accounting for logic, science, or morality; while the non-Christian worldview can allow for none of these. Non-Christians are forced to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of anything.
The only proof for the existence of God is that without God nothing can be proven at all. Only by starting with the Christian God can we have a basis for logic, science and ethics. God is absolute. This means that He is the standard of truth. The laws of logic reflect God’s thinking. Logic can be discovered and used by humanity. Logic is evident and universal, invariant, immaterial. God and the laws of logic are eternal, and man discovers and uses these laws because he is created in the image of God. We can trust our senses because God tells us that we can trust our senses and that they’ve been created so that they are reliable. We can perform science only because we can trust our senses, and because there are regularities in creation. Creation is a revelation of God’s uniform nature. God’s Word tells us that we should expect regularities in nature. Morality is possible only because the absolute, personal God of the Christian scriptures exists. Logic, science, and morality are not allowed in any other worldview. Christianity is proven true because of the impossibility of the contrary. Without God it is impossible to prove anything.
A non-Christian’s reasoning is affected by sin and drowns in irrationality. Atheists know that God exists, but assume from the beginning that He does not in order to live as though He doesn’t. The atheist worldview cannot allow for the universal, immaterial, invariant laws of logic, yet continues to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to proceed with thought. How are the laws of logic possible in an atheistic universe, and how are they justified? The atheist worldview cannot provide a reason as to why we should trust our senses, or why we should assume that there is regularity in nature. The unbeliever has to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to get anywhere in science. The atheist worldview cannot allow for morality, so there is no real ethical reason to accept one proposition over another anyway. Yet the unbeliever continues to talk and live like some things are really right and some things are really wrong because they cannot eliminate the knowledge of God from themselves. In borrowing from the Christian worldview, atheists and other non-Christians show that they are unable to account even for this debate without resting on the presupposition that God exists.
So without God there is no intelligibility whatsoever. The proof for God’s existence is that without God nothing is provable. The Christian worldview is proven true by the impossibility of the contrary. It is up to the non-Christian to account for logic, science, and morality or to repent and believe the Gospel message of Jesus Christ which leads to the knowledge of things as they truly are.
"Does God Exist?"
Central Virginia Community College
February 2006
Thank you all for coming out for the debate and thanks to Alex and Dr. McGee for being willing to help with this. I’d also like to thank my God, in whom we live and move and have our being. I want to make it clear from the start that the God I am talking about today is the God of the Christian scriptures. That’s the only God I care to prove because He is the only God who actually exists. I am happy to join Alex in refuting any other gods.
A lot of people have told me that it is a tall order to try and prove God’s existence in ten minutes. While I was on the phone with my girlfriend Kerri the other night, she told me that she didn’t understand why I have to prove God’s existence because the evidence for His existence is perfectly clear. She’s right, if God exists then the evidence for Him must be abundant and plain. The Christian God makes this claim Himself. Psalm 19.1-4 says that
The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
Their measuring line goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.
So if a person denies that there is evidence for God’s existence, then they have denied the God of the Christian scriptures from the very start. The evidence is abundant and plain, every fact of existence attests to God’s glory. When I say evidence I am referring to all of the evidence that attests to God’s existence and person. This is not just referring to popular “proofs” for God’s existence but to God’s creation and God’s Word. Everything is evidence that God exists.
If the evidence for God’s existence is so abundant and plain and clear then everyone should believe in God. The truth is that even though some people deny it, everyone does believe in God. Romans 1.18-25 says that
The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!
So if a person denies that God exists or denies that there is evidence for His existence or denies that they know that God exists, they call God a liar. So God and non-Christians are not on good terms, so to speak. That’s why non-Christians try so hard to rationalize and create arguments against the God who made them. The reason that everyone does not claim to believe in God is because everyone is blinded by sin. Non-Christians suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
Everyone does not know God in a saving way. We can learn about our need for salvation and how to obtain it through the Word of God. God’s Word teaches us that we are all sinners. We have all done wrong in God’s eyes. We have failed to conform to God’s moral character. That is what we mean by sin. God did not decide to leave us alone to try and save ourselves. We cannot save ourselves; there is nothing good enough that we can ever do to merit forgiveness of our sins. We need Jesus to save us from our rebellion against God even in our thinking. To even question God’s authority is to sin against Him, and this sin needs the forgiveness that is only available through the blood that Christ shed while dying on the cross. God in His love sent His Son Jesus Christ into the world to die for sins so that whoever trusts in Jesus as personal Savior and Lord will be saved from their sin and will never die. This is how God shows His love towards us, in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us. This redemption is needed by every individual here today.
Now I’m sure that some of you are upset at this point because I’m calling you a sinner. Well, I am a sinner too, we all are. Just because something is offensive does not make it untrue. Others are upset because they realize that the outcome of this discussion does affect you. Whether or not God exists affects everything, even how you think of yourself. There are others who are upset that I’m using the Bible so much. There is a reason for this. When we examine our beliefs we find a governing principle, a final authority for everything that I will call a presupposition. A non-Christian tries to start with a false presupposition that they are in God’s position as a final judge of truth, even though they are finite and sinful. Non-Christians use arguments involving logic, science, and morality in order to try and make a case against God. There is a logical necessity attached to the presupposition of the God of the Bible, and rejecting this presupposition destroys any hope of having a solid foundation for things like knowledge and science and ethics. Without God as a precondition for everything, this universe and all that is in it, including the language we are communicating with now loses all intelligibility.
Non-Christians are forced to borrow from the Christian worldview because it is the only worldview which is true and accounts for logic, science, and morality. This is God’s world and man is created in God’s image. We can’t stand outside of God’s creation on some neutral ground and debate whether or not God exists because His existence will come to bear on our arguments. Even though unbelievers strive to suppress this truth, it cannot be removed from their being and so they argue as though they are the final authority of truth while actually borrowing from the Christian worldview in order to get anywhere. It is like someone standing on the stage and claiming through the microphone that the stage does not exist.
The Christian worldview is proven true by the impossibility of the contrary. This does not mean that Christianity is merely probable, or that it is the best explanation for the facts we have; it means that the Christian worldview is the only true one without question. The Christian worldview has no trouble accounting for logic, science, or morality; while the non-Christian worldview can allow for none of these. Non-Christians are forced to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of anything.
The only proof for the existence of God is that without God nothing can be proven at all. Only by starting with the Christian God can we have a basis for logic, science and ethics. God is absolute. This means that He is the standard of truth. The laws of logic reflect God’s thinking. Logic can be discovered and used by humanity. Logic is evident and universal, invariant, immaterial. God and the laws of logic are eternal, and man discovers and uses these laws because he is created in the image of God. We can trust our senses because God tells us that we can trust our senses and that they’ve been created so that they are reliable. We can perform science only because we can trust our senses, and because there are regularities in creation. Creation is a revelation of God’s uniform nature. God’s Word tells us that we should expect regularities in nature. Morality is possible only because the absolute, personal God of the Christian scriptures exists. Logic, science, and morality are not allowed in any other worldview. Christianity is proven true because of the impossibility of the contrary. Without God it is impossible to prove anything.
A non-Christian’s reasoning is affected by sin and drowns in irrationality. Atheists know that God exists, but assume from the beginning that He does not in order to live as though He doesn’t. The atheist worldview cannot allow for the universal, immaterial, invariant laws of logic, yet continues to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to proceed with thought. How are the laws of logic possible in an atheistic universe, and how are they justified? The atheist worldview cannot provide a reason as to why we should trust our senses, or why we should assume that there is regularity in nature. The unbeliever has to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to get anywhere in science. The atheist worldview cannot allow for morality, so there is no real ethical reason to accept one proposition over another anyway. Yet the unbeliever continues to talk and live like some things are really right and some things are really wrong because they cannot eliminate the knowledge of God from themselves. In borrowing from the Christian worldview, atheists and other non-Christians show that they are unable to account even for this debate without resting on the presupposition that God exists.
So without God there is no intelligibility whatsoever. The proof for God’s existence is that without God nothing is provable. The Christian worldview is proven true by the impossibility of the contrary. It is up to the non-Christian to account for logic, science, and morality or to repent and believe the Gospel message of Jesus Christ which leads to the knowledge of things as they truly are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)