Orr on Traditional Theistic Proofs

A God capable of proof would be no God at all; since this would mean that there is something higher than God from which His existence can be deduced.  But this applies not only to the ordinary reasoning of the deductive logic.  It does not apply to that higher kind of proof which may be said to consist in the mind being guided back to the clear recognition of its own ultimate pre-suppositions.  Proof in Theism certainly does not consist in deducing God’s existence as a lower from a higher; but rather in showing that God’s existence is itself the last postulate of reason—the ultimate basis on which all other knowledge, all other belief rests.

Orr, James, The Christian View of God and the World, (Grand Rapids: Kregel) 1989, 94..

A word on the Word from Justin Martyr, a Re-Post

(This is a re-post from 2009.  I believe it is worthy of rereading time and again, and that it is most needful for Christians to hear today.  Enjoy.  KLS.) 

This is undoubtedly one of my favorite passages from the writings of Justin Martyr, one of the great early Church Apologists. It is the first chapter of his On The Resurrection. Nowhere have I read a clearer, more impassioned expression of presuppositionism’s principle thought. Apologetics is moving back to the future so to speak.

The word of truth is free, and carries its own authority, disdaining to fall under any skilful argument, or to endure the logical scrutiny of its hearers. But it would be believed for its own nobility, and for the confidence due to Him who sends it. Now the word of truth is sent from God; wherefore the freedom claimed by the truth is not arrogant. For being sent with authority, it were not fit that it should be required to produce proof of what is said; since neither is there any proof beyond itself, which is God. For every proof is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves; since what is disbelieved, until proof is produced, gets credit when such proof is produced, and is recognised as being what it was stated to be. But nothing is either more powerful or more trustworthy than the truth; so that he who requires proof of this is like one who wishes it demonstrated why the things that appear to the senses do appear. For the test of those things which are received through the reason, is sense; but of sense itself there is no test beyond itself. As then we bring those things which reason hunts after, to sense, and by it judge what kind of things they are, whether the things spoken be true or false, and then sit in judgment no longer, giving full credit to its decision; so also we refer all that is said regarding men and the world to the truth, and by it judge whether it be worthless or no. But the utterances of truth we judge by no separate test, giving full credit to itself. And God, the Father of the universe, who is the perfect intelligence, is the truth. And the Word, being His Son, came to us, having put on flesh, revealing both Himself and the Father, giving to us in Himself resurrection from the dead, and eternal life afterwards. And this is Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord. He, therefore, is Himself both the faith and the proof of Himself and of all things. Wherefore those who follow Him, and know Him, having faith in Him as their proof, shall rest in Him. But since the adversary does not cease to resist many, and uses many and divers arts to ensnare them, that he may seduce the faithful from their faith, and that he may prevent the faithless from believing, it seems to me necessary that we also, being armed with the invulnerable doctrines of the faith, do battle against him in behalf of the weak.

Worldviews: the Proper Place of Evidences

When offering Christian and creationist evidences, we must be sure that we make clear that these facts must be understood within the broader context of the Christian worldview. We must resist the temptation to present the evidences as self-interpreting, as though both Christians and non-Christians will view the facts in terms of the same criteria and standards of “proof.” Take the lynchpin of the faith, e.g., the resurrection of Jesus. Both the Christian and the non-Christian have the same historical data before them. The Christian interprets these data through the lens of Scripture, concluding that Jesus is therefore the Messiah, warranting the obedience and faith of all peoples. The non-Christian, however, views the same data through the lens of his naturalistic presuppositions, concluding that, since we live in a random world of chance, weird things do happen, if indeed Jesus of Nazareth came back from the dead! 

                                                      

Therefore, without the context of the sweeping redemptive-historical framework of Scripture as the interpretive grid, Jesus resurrection—the crux of the Christian faith—is a fluke of nature at best and unintelligible at worst. So it is with all evidentially based arguments. We should avoid attempting to treat evidences as neutral facts open to anyone’s interpretation, and then try to move the unbeliever toward truly Christian content and understanding. Rather, we must be unapologetic in our apologetics, showing non-Christians that not only is this or that evidence or fact understandable in terms of Scripture but also every facet of human experience. 

Secondly, then, evidences have their place, but we must be careful to not give them a higher place than is warranted, when considering the conversion of non-Christians. From academic antitheists to agnostic Joe, who works down at the gas station, nearly all unbelievers present their resistance to the gospel and biblical truth as merely the intellectually respectable problem of a lack of evidence for God’s existence, creationism, Christ’s resurrection, etc. The tempting response is to begin pouring out the best information, evidences, and arguments we have; we begin trying to show the unbeliever that there are sufficient facts available to meet his rationalistic demands of proof. 

One glaring problem with this idea is that it presumes that unbelievers simply lack sufficient evidence for obedient belief in the living God, which is itself an assumption of atheism; the idea is perfectly unscriptural, even anti-scriptural. Even the most comprehensive biblical anthropology would never suggest that a person’s unbelief and disobedience is an intellectual problem, as though God has not presented each and every human with sufficient proof of his reality, his nature, etc. (see, e.g., Rom. 1:18ff). Instead, biblically speaking, man’s problem with God is a moral one. “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom. 8:7). Unbelievers are not ignorant of God, but are “haters of God” (Rom. 1:30); he is not doing good by seeking God, since “none seeketh after God” and none doeth good” (Rom. 3:11, 12). So, if we take the biblical view of man, especially fallen man, seriously, we need to be careful to address the unbeliever’s really real problem, his sinful attitude toward Christ, rather than his perceived problem of an alleged want of evidence. The saving gospel, as set forth in the Self-attesting Word, is what the unbeliever lacks, not intellectual satisfaction. He doesn’t need new evidences but a new heart and a new mind.

All of this is easy to discuss in the abstract, but all too often, when I am personally engaged in apologetic and evangelistic conversations, it is easy to slip into the mode of moving forward as though the conclusion of an airtight argument with result in the unbeliever’s immediate concession to the truth and confession of Christ. Even if that were true, it would have the effect of his faith standing in the wisdom of men rather than the power of God, which is his original problem (1 Cor. 2:5; cf. Gen. 3)!  

Worldviews: Faith Goes Deeper Still

Scripture and experience have taught me how little the creation-evolution debate actually has to do with evidences and “science.”  Solid creationist materials have highlighted that what is at stake in this is an all-out clash of worldviews.  Even the humanist materials have, consciously or not, alluded to this reality here and there, mentioning the socio-situational relativity of the scientific enterprise.  This observation helps us get beneath the fact-lobbing type of discourse and into a deeper analysis of the conflict between not facts and evidences per se but each perspective’s philosophy of fact and philosophy of evidence, and most importantly the nature of epistemological authorities.  However, I now question if the worldview level of analysis is sufficient for truly understanding what is at stake for the subjects holding one or the other of these antithetical perspectives. 

I believe to really get at the root of the divide, at least of the personal, existential, or psychological level, we need to look even deeper than mere worldviews.  Worldviews are not selected like pudding or pie at a buffet; neither are they caught passively like a common cold.  Rather, just as philosophical theorizing and scientific hypothesizing have a particular worldview undergirding them, that worldview is not a self-sufficient, self-grounding paradigm.  Worldviews are themselves a more or less self-consistent, more or less internally coherent and systematic expression of a deeper heart commitment, namely a faith. 

Every worldview—again, consciously or not—is characterized by faith.  When we are plumbing questions of the origin and destination of the world, and by extension ourselves, the unity and diversity of our experience, and such matters, we soon discover that the answers to these questions are far beyond analytical or linear reason and even farther from inductive, scientific thought and theory.  The answers ultimately grow out of what Herman Dooyeweerd called a ‘religious ground-motive.’  This is equally true for both Christian and non-Christian worldviews.  This religious ground-motive is prior to and tethers the entirety of one’s life attitude or outlook.  As Solomon said, “Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23; cf. Matt. 12:35).  So, just as worldview is logically and practically prior to one’s epistemic authority and philosophy of facts and evidences, so also is one’s deepest heart commitment, that is, faith, prior to his worldview.

This realization has had a subjective and objective effect on my thinking about the creation-evolution debate.  With respect to the subjective side, this realization has granted me an even sounder cognitive rest in my faith commitment to a young-earth creational view.  Understanding the pre-worldview commitments involved helps to undermine any insecurity that a Christian may have in the face of evolutionary theories and so-called evidences.  The debate is ultimately not, as it is often misunderstood to be, faith versus reason, even less is it religion versus science.  It is one faith commitment versus another; it is ultimately two antithetical religious ground-motives in mortal combat.  Additionally, because the relatively young-earth creational view is perfectly self-consistent and self-referentially coherent, as an integral element of the biblical worldview; and, because of my faith commitment to the biblical worldview through the gospel of Jesus Christ, I find myself at imperturbable cognitive rest in the biblical creational perspective. 

With respect to the objective side, these observations have serious implications for apologetical and evangelistic engagements.  If these observations are so, then no amount of so-called scientific evidence will change a person’s mind, toward either direction in the debate.  This does not disparage the right place and purpose of evidences within the broader context of a particular worldview.  What it does do is encourage the apologist-witness to quickly move the direction of the conversation to the crux of the issue, the misplaced faith and faulty ground-motive of the non-Christian, who needs to experience a Copernican revolution, so to speak, of the heart—repentance and trusting obedience to the gospel of Christ. 

All this has led to a related disposition, that is, a more critical view of so-called scientific truth, whether in the context of either worldview, be it creationism or humanism-evolution.  Science—all science—is a human endeavor.  Science is one expression of the human response to God’s revelation in nature.  It is the attempt at producing a systematic ordering and description of the created order.  As such, true science is always provisional and contingent; at best, we may ascribe to its conclusions ‘scientific knowledge,’ but never ‘scientific truth.’  Because of its inherent nature, scientific reasoning can never achieve epistemic certainty; it can never result in “truth.”  Truth is immutable, that is, unchanging.  However, the natural order, which is the lawful field of scientific investigation, is always changing.  Truth is eternal or timeless; science deals only with the temporal structures of reality.  Truth is abstract, whereas science deals only with concrete particulars.  Truth is universal, but scientific studies are, again, bound to particulars. Therefore, anytime the conclusion is reach, which claims to have been demonstrated as “scientific truth,” one can rest assured that the argument for the so-called “truth” is a non-sequitur—that is, it does not follow. 

Similar to the first, this observation has a two-fold effect.  First, when confronting evolutionary “truth,” in so far as the proponent claims to be conducting science, it is demonstrable that his reasoning is fallacious and will always be so.  Every claim to scientific “truth” is false, ironically.  This, I believe, would be immensely helpful for young Christians especially and their interpretations and explanations of the popular science on TV and in other media, which naively presents the findings or those of others as “scientific truth.”  Secondly, it teaches us that despite our commitment to creationism, we must be cautious with respect to a number of statements in Scripture.  The creation account of Scripture was not written by scientists for scientists, neither was it meant to serve as a scientific textbook.  The biblical account of creation is pre-scientific, as are all origin accounts, including evolution, pantheism, and the rest.  It is pre-scientific in both the historical and the logical sense.  Historically, the creation account is centuries anterior to the rise of modern science.  Logically, in light of the above observations, it is anterior to scientific investigation.  However, this is the case with all accounts of the origin and destination of humanity and the cosmos.  So, this must be borne in mind, while considering the manifold aspects of the debate.  To say that the creation account is pre-scientific in either sense is not to suggest that it is un- or anti-scientific at all.  However, as they put it is my neck of the woods, “It is what it is.”  Therefore, we must take it on its own terms and resist at all costs the temptation of imposing a modernistic, scientific mode of thought upon the text.

For me, then, all of this is compelling me to look beyond the typical battleground passages of the debate toward other deep, related, and profound statements, as I continue to nurture my creational outlook.  Consider passages like St. Paul’s doxological outburst in Romans 11:36, “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen;” or, the Christ creed of Colossians 1, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence” (vv. 16—18).  How should these texts shape one’s creational outlook?  It is typical among creationist literature to point out that one will have an anemic view of Christ if he doubts Genesis 1, but what if we inverted the reasoning; we will have a warped view of creation apart from a full, rich knowledge and grace as it is in the incomprehensible Christ.  Let us therefore keep the Center, Christ. 

Antitheism Answered

NOTE: As of January 3, Daniel folded up the thread to which what follows was responding.  That is one of the sad characteristics of antitheists, when their faith commitments are threatened and challenged for justification--rather than taken for granted--they fold.  At any rate, the following hopefully provides enough context to makes some sense of the issues.
_________________________________

During July of last year I posted a three part email debate that I had with Pelagian heretic Kyle Butt, which was listed as part 1, part 2, and part 3.  A couple of weeks ago, after a few providential clicks, I discovered another soul who had a similar experience with Kyle.  Daniel, however, is a crass antitheist, materialist, and reveals that not everyone knows yet that Alvin Plantinga laid the axe to the root of epistemological foundationalism.  In the email conversation between the two, Kyle, in his tenuous, rationalistic manner, attempted to argue for God’s mere existence.  Not satisfied with Kyle’s attempt at defending the faith (for one thing, he defends a different faith than the Faith), I decided to respond, not to their conversation, but to the heart of Daniel’s apostate worldview.  I did this on the 12^th of this month; Daniel has yet to reply, and perhaps won’t.  So, I thought I’d post my response here as well.  If you are familiar with my blog or Reformed apologetics, then nothing below will appear radical or new.  It is just one application of the Reformed apologetic to the old/new antitheism.  Blessings.

__________________________________

Daniel,

I found it quite interesting to discover another person had engaged would-be apologist Kyle Butt in an email debate.  My experience with Kyle was I’m sure different than yours, in the sense that I am a Christian.  So, to the unbaptized my discussion with Kyle might seem to have been mere infighting.  However, Kyle is what is known in historical theology as a Pelagian, and therefore beyond the pale of historic Christian orthodoxy.  So, I perceived our conversation to be of a different nature than mere polemics, something more than two Christians fusing over periphery issues of private judgment.  Nevertheless, you and I have at least one thing in common: we’ve both experienced the frustrations of trying to maintain a rational rally of arguments with Kyle. 

Not only do Kyle and I have antithetical views of anthropology, our approach to defending and commending the Christian gospel and worldview are radically at odds.  With that in mind, I thought I would share with you some thoughts and challenges that I find to be insurmountable problems for those committed to metaphysical naturalism.  And please bear with the following, though, as I will likely present several points, which are more or less related.  The reason being, I simply cannot predict exactly when or whether I will be able to return to whatever conversation you are willing to indulge in for follow up remarks.  Similarly, I do not engage in blog battles often, but I thought that your material and Kyle’s poor representation warranted whatever meager offering I could present.  So, if you are willing to give ear, let me begin.  Essentially, for simplicity’s sake, what follows will be restricted to the field of epistemology.   

Begin by considering this.  If our brains are merely a random collection of atoms, responding to various stimuli, in accord with the laws of physics, biology and chemistry (whatever ‘laws’ may be in a materialistic universe), then true beliefs are illusory, since these beliefs would be only the consequences of these bits of matter reacting with other bits of matter in ways predetermined by antecedent material causes.  It seems inescapable that, according to materialism, our brains are just a random collection of atoms, which behave according to physical laws and predetermined antecedents.  It follows necessarily, then, that true beliefs are illusory, not least the belief in materialism. 

More than that, if the materialists’ perspective is correct, and our reason is reducible to brain stuffs, working as described above, then a subject’s seeming favorable attitude and volitional commitment to any ‘belief’ would likewise be determined not by meaningful reflection and rational deliberations but by material-only antecedents.  So, on your view, I don’t believe beliefs signify anything personal or rational, but are best understood to be sensational effects of purely material causes.   On materialism, I can find no grounds for believing in belief.    

At any rate, what difference this makes is insignificant in terms of materialism.  For like beliefs, truth—the object of knowledge—cannot exist within the context of the materialists’ world.  Truth itself is immaterial.  Moreover, it is eternal.  For instance, there never was nor ever will be a time in which the law of non-contradiction was or could be false.  This fact also points to the immutability and absoluteness of truth.  In a materialists’ world the only thing that enjoys these attributes—immateriality, eternality, immutability, absoluteness—is the fact that there is no ontological (or even logical) residency for such, and therefore no home for truth, thus leaving knowledge homeless as well. 

Your primary problem is rooted in your epistemological autonomy.  Granting your faith commitment to metaphysical naturalism and materialism, in your strivings for knowledge, you are left with and only with the epistemological perspective of pure empiricism.  This leads into a number of problems of significant proportion. 

                                       

Firstly, empiricism cannot stand the rigors of its own criteria for knowledge, e.g., “Knowledge comes only through sense perception.” The truth of this proposition is not itself something known through sense perception and observation.  Empiricism, ultimately, can tell us nothing about the future, since the future is yet to be observed, and all knowledge is reducible to observation through the senses.  Closely related is the fact that your man David Hume observed, namely that the cause and effect relationships presupposed by empiricists are (obviously!) not subject to empirical observation, analyses and/or verification, and therefore cannot be known, according to the rigors of empiricism.  At best, two events or states of affairs, what are commonly called “brute facts,” occurring in close relation to one another are mere coincidence, happenstance, without any meaningful relation.

Moreover, pure empiricism’s history cannot even agree about the metaphysical reality we’re supposedly observing.  Locke rendered “substance” to be inexplicable; Berkeley decided to simply do away with material reality; but, who really cares, since Hume discovered that there was no mental/immaterial self to do the observing!  Even if a consensus were established, it makes little difference, since empiricism, presuming the principle of induction, and not having an internally coherent justification always begs the fundamental question.  An eminent spokesperson of your stripe understood this much.

It has been argued that we have reason that we know that the future will resemble the past, because what was the future has constantly become the past.  But such an argument really begs the very question at issue...We have therefore still to seek for some principle which shall enable us to know that the future will follow the same laws as the past (Burtrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy [New York, NY: Barnes and Noble, 2004] 45).

In your opening statements in this discussion with Mr. Butt, you made much of ‘verification.’ However, the argument for empirical verification breaks a formal law of logic, and is therefore always fallacious.  It goes like this: If hypothesis P, then effect Q will result; Q was the result, therefore P is verified and may be considered ‘theory’ or ‘law.’  This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.  Because every line of verification must proceed thus, no method of verification is logically valid or sound.  Besides this, if truth were dependent upon verification, then we’d never know anything to be true, since every verification would itself need verification, ad infinitum.  Empiricism has no answer to the problem of an infinite regress in establishing epistemic justification.  Furthermore, empiricism cannot verify, much less account for, the abstract, absolute, universal, and invariable logical laws and concepts it takes for granted. 

It may be added that empiricism leads to solipsism.  Empiricism begins, is checked, and ends with the subject’s mere (brute) perceptions; and, those perceptions can only be verified by other perceptions, thus leading to solipsism.  The epistemology which most loudly boasts objectivity actually eliminates genuine knowledge of any reality outside oneself—crass subjectivism.  Additionally, our senses are often deceptive, and empiricism provides no means of determining which and how the data should be filtered. 

Finally, empiricism is destroyed by means of the so-called ‘problem of criterion.’  Empiricism is an epistemological ‘method’ for investigating reality; it is a chosen criterion for judging and verifying claims made about what ultimate reality truly is.  The problem comes when one asks, “How do we know that empiricism is the proper criterion for evaluating reality, one that truly corresponds with reality?”  You see, empiricists would already have to know in advance, and exhaustively so, what reality is ultimately like before they would ever be able to identify their epistemological method.  But, they tell us that such is only achievable by means of their method, empiricism.  The point is: You must already presuppose your metaphysical perspective (i.e., materialism) in advance before ever selecting your method of investigation—you must first make a faith commitment.  This, ironically, is the very thing for which you attempt to mock Christians.  Therefore, I believe it apropos to cite Psalm 7:14—15 as a proper acclamation for the antitheistic position:  “Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood.  He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made.”

Granting all this—making the concept of beliefs unbelievable, making truth a cosmological hobo, and by faith in a false metaphysical construct, making epistemic justification unjustifiable—your materialism, like the mute pagan idols of antiquity, make the idol of autonomous human reason, in a word, dumb. 

It was the Puritan Richard Baxter who declared, “Nothing can be rightly known, if God be not known.”  So, I suppose in a sense the above arguments are simply support for this unpretentious dictum.  The good news is that in the fullness of time God the Father sent forth his Son, Christ Jesus, to live such a life and die such a death and be resurrected in such a glory that rebels like you and I, by faith—not in our own will and reason independent of God; instead—in Jesus’ Name, offices, and work alone we might be saved.  That is, that we might be saved from God’s righteous judgment against our cosmic treason and rebellion, and restored to a right standing before him and relationship with him, having peace with God through Christ by the Holy Ghost. 

In addition, Jesus saves us from the various expressions of our sinful reasoning, such as naturalistic/materialistic antitheism.  Such false constructs lead straightway to epistemological self-destruction, as I believe foregoing succinctly demonstrates.  By the mercies of God in Christ, however, the Holy Ghost begins his work of transformation, which includes not least the renewing of our minds, recreating us in true knowledge and righteousness and holiness, after the image of him who created us, and thus conforming us into the image of Christ.  So, I am not inviting you to have faith at the expense of reason.  Rather, I am inviting you to a faith other than the one that you have now, antithetically other in fact.  This faith, faith in the Logos, Christ Jesus and his self-attesting Word, does not disparage reason; no, this faith is the only one that can save reason, just as it is the only one that can save sinners, like you and like me.

May God give you light and this very sort of faith,

Kevin  
_______________________________________

The discussion has continued.  Daniel is so committed to his naturalism/materialism so as to understand it not as a worldview but nature/material itself.  This reveals either his utter lack of understanding or the tenacity of his faith commitment to his worldview or both.

Der HammermanJanuary 22, 2013 at 9:36 AM

@Kevin Stevenson @CEN Rather than support your argument, you "attempt" to dismantle naturalism, which happens to be the foundation of ALL decisions--from assembling a toilet to driving down the street. If you have issues with the scientific method, naturalism, materialism, or rational thought and decision-making, I invite both of you to jump out of a 10-story window and be greeted with the harsh reality of naturalism. Verification and falsification are the reasons science has sent rovers to Mars. Can you pray a ship to Mars?

I don't need to address at length because of the utter ridiculousness of your arguments. Suffice it to say--both of you said "you must choose to have faith". That's bottom line. I MUST CHOOSE to BELIEVE your position without an ounce of testable evidence. Why can't I just "choose to believe" Islam or Buddism or Hinduism? Why Christianity? Do you not see the importance of verification/falsification?

Your premises are baseless and faulty. Shifting sand.

Kevin StevensonJanuary 23, 2013 at 7:14 PM

Thank you for your reply, Daniel; it merely illustrated the truth of my conclusions. You misquoted me in order to dress your strawman; you make the sophomoric mistake of failing to recognize that in honest inquiry and debate, epistemological criteria must coordinate the metaphysical nature of the object in question (e.g., when your Mama would tell you that she loved you, did you suspend your belief in the proposition except she offer you empirically testable evidence?!? No, you didn’t). When I attacked naturalism, you present it as an attack on the natural order; when I attacked naturalistic science, you reacted as though I attacked verification (simply because you cannot answer the challenges in terms of your espoused worldview does not mean there is no answer...but such is the narrow-mindedness of antitheism). In sum, your reply provided “testable evidence” in support of my conclusion that your view issues in solipsism. So, it is not at all surprising that your “attempt” to answer--in short or 'at length'--my challenge was barely more than an emotive outburst. Thanks, again. 

Der HammermanJanuary 25, 2013 at 5:15 AM

Ahhh...old faithful--the Love Argument. Love is an emotion--a mental reaction to stimuli, a natural phenomenon. We simply apply a name to it and make it into something magical and abstract when it is not. For me, someone expressing love does not require the same level of evidence as brain surgery. There is no comparison.

My arguments remain unaddressed. The Christian position is merely a playful exercise in philosophy and nothing more. Philosophical musings on the suspension of reality are a precursor to post-modernist thought.

Demonstrate Christianity is true or we have nothing more to discuss.

Kevin StevensonJanuary 25, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Which is more fundamental and sublime in human experience, love or brain surgery? If love is a mere reaction to physical stimuli, as you suggested, then it is no longer a choice, and is therefore no more meaningful than constipation...if you are correct, that is. Again, I love how all your name-calling and snide remarks, rather than answers, bolster the truth of the Christian position; it is immensely helpful for the self-conscious, honest observers.

Demonstrate...?

1. Either Christian theism or materialism
2. Not materialism (as demonstrated above)
3. Ergo, Christian theism...QED!

There ya go, Daniel. Now what would you like to discuss? 

Der HammermanJanuary 28, 2013 at 10:45 AM

You have used materialism as a straw man. The Christian claim lies outside the known material world. I simply point out that what you claim cannot be known. Demonstrate Christianity is true, please.

Kevin StevensonJanuary 28, 2013 at 3:38 PM

That you cannot (per your materialism) and will not (per your hard heartedness) accept a valid and sound argument is not something I can help you with, Daniel. The fact is, materialism is a strawman construction; that, however, is not my fault. 
 _______________________________
 

NOTE: Daniel has repeatedly deleted the above comment only for me to repost it the next day.  This last time, however, I left it and responded with the following...which he’ll likely delete also.  When one’s position is utterly bankrupt, deletion, I suppose, is a smart tactic.

 _______________________________

Kevin StevensonJanuary 30, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Logical laws lie outside the known material world as well. Therefore, to demand a logical demonstration of anything presupposes the truth of the Christian worldview. In this sense, if your view were correct, no one could prove anything! There is your demonstration. Our debate over the truth of Christianity would be unintelligible, if Christianity weren't true.

What is odd is that you left one fundamentalist group to only remain a fundamentalist in another...just odd.

Der HammermanJanuary 31, 2013 at 7:11 AM

Not once have I asked you to "prove" anything. I do not use that word in this context. "Proof" is applied to physics and math. Your claim is philosophical and should be supported with verifiable/falsifiable evidence. Without it, your claim holds as much water as a cheese grater.

Now, I'll explain again (and for the last time). I make no claim. The theist claims "I know the mind of god and I know he is the author of everything". The atheist says "I don't accept your argument. Please provide evidence."

If I said, "I spoke to John F. Kennedy in my apartment last night." You have every right (and should) question my claim. Stop attempting to philosophize your way out of this.

Stop copping out and demonstrate Christianity is true

Der HammermanJanuary 31, 2013 at 7:20 AM

Look, I'm well-aware of postmodernist attempts to make verification/falsification irrelevant, but it won't work with me. It fails in every way. I encounter it often. If you make a claim, there must be something to support it. If the evidence insufficient, it will be rejected. "God told me in my head" is not sufficient evidence for me. You obviously have a lower standard for evidence and that's probably why you're not in any other field, but religion. You would not survive in the real world where every day decisions are made on facts and reason.

Kevin StevensonJanuary 31, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Very well, Daniel. Please just tell me what kind of verifiable evidence for the truth of the Christian claims would it take to satisfy you? But know, I hold to anything but a postmodern epistemology, and that you can't see that is telling. Moreover, I am not challenging verification per se, but only verification grounded in a materialistic frame of reference. Philosophizing in these questions is unavoidable. That you forbid it is, again, telling of your tenuous position and mindset. So, tell me: what sort of evidence would satisfy you; and, secondly, why that sort of evidence alone?

Kevin StevensonJanuary 31, 2013 at 3:49 PM

BTW: Positivism is as dead as it is ridiculous today. So, if I were you, I wouldn't speak so disparagingly of postmodernism. Your positivist fathers gave us sour grapes, and now their childrens', the postmoderns', teeth are on edge. Typical of the dialectical tension of antitheistic worldviews.

 

Der HammermanJanuary 31, 2013 at 6:37 PM

I don't have time nor do I have interest in giving a dissertation on postmodernism, but you are clearly a subscriber. Religious philosophy requires no firm foundation in reality and no methodological rigor. It is merely speculative and nonsensical--a classic example of postmodern epistemology. Every time I push for evidence for Christianity, in return I receive nonsense responses questioning reality. That's postmodern thought.

I think you're well-aware of what sort of evidence I require. Do not play coy. 1) Establish there is a god with testable, repeatable evidence (e.g. something we can take into a lab and probe); 2) Establish that this particular "god" created everything. Arguments from beauty or design are not testable--only hypothetical. Beyond hypothesis there are test requirements to establish the veracity of the claim. 3) Establish that this particular god is the god of Christianity. If he/she/it is, then all other claims that he is not can be falsified. Islam will be demonstrated as false every time.

All evidence is not only verifiable, but falsifiable. For instance, to falsify 2+2=4, only once does it need to equal 5. Every time I drop a ball, it falls to the earth. If once it does not, the law of gravity is falsified. Likewise, demonstrate that the Christian god created the universe and we can verify/falsify your evidence.

Without verification/falsification of claims, anyone can claim anything they want. I can even claim to be a god and according to your epistemology, no one can challenge it.

Absolute and utter nonsense, my friend.

 

Kevin StevensonFebruary 1, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Daniel, I believe that I can speak for most, when I say I am thankful that you have not subjected us to a dissertation on postmodernism. I can think of few things that would be less edifying. Even your pathetic, pithy definition proffered above is plenty to prove that. I thought self-ascribed ‘scientific folk’ like you appreciated a reasonable dose of skepticism.

I guess the fallacy in my thinking here is that anything you have presented is remotely skirting scientific reasoning. That was my mistake. You scorn to shame Christianity as being mere philosophy, all the while demonstrating that you hold a Ph.D in morosophy. Your approach to meaningful questions stinks about as bad as that fat stogie, and is as fleeting as the style of those cheesy aviators in your profile pic. One good word I have for postmoderns, however, is that they have driven your naturalism to its logical end, which glories in the end of all meaning. You have yourself to thank, my friend. If you would only be consistent, you too would embrace postmodernism with all the existential zeal you could muster.

You don’t use term “prove/proof” in this context? Frankly, on your worldview, you never have a right to use it. But, why don’t you? It is because the proof for the Christian perspective is veritable. When I asked what sort of evidence for God’s existence would satisfy you, look what you presented! You want something “testable, repeatable,” something we can “take into the lab a probe”! In other words, you want a physical instantiation of something you well know is an immaterial reality (Jn. 1:18; 4:24). Even if I were to bow the philosophical knee to your would-be epistemic judgment, you cannot even justify (or demonstrate) that your senses give you any reliable information about an objective world round about yourself. You can call me names and make slight me for saying so, but it is true nonetheless, if naturalism is true. And that is something I have demonstrated and you’ve sidestepped. As I said, you get solipsism as the wage of your laboring against the living Christ. That’s a high price to pay, but pay you will.

Again, this is such a stupid approach to the issues so as to force you to give up the rules of grammar, laws of mathematics, physics, and not least logic; and your contributions here have demonstrated or proved, whichever you prefer, that you are neigh unto consistency in this regard. You plainly don’t have the cognitive furniture to even be hospitable to weighty matters like these. You, my friend, are a fool. One day, maybe this day, we will both know who is correct. If it be you, then all things are equal, and an infinite of time will mean nothing to either of us. If I am correct, however,...well, you know how it goes. I only pray that God would grant his Light to shine in your darkened mind and understanding and rescue you from your absurdity and the eternity that faces you, which begins now. Until then, enjoy your mechanistic anemic little world. No, wait; you can’t experience joy...sorry, I forgot who I was talking to. I have a hard time thinking like a materialist.