Reformed epistemology and Presuppositional apologetics

One problem about presuppositional apologetics which I hinted at in my last post is that when it speaks of circular reasoning being inevitable it seems to assuming that everything we believe we claim certainty about. More specifically presuppositionalists appear to be using the classic trilemma of skepticism; all propositions ultimately end up in circular reasoning, an infinite regress or brute facts. For one thing this trilemma seems self-defeating in the sense that we could never be certain that its correct if it is indeed correct. But more important to this discussion, the trilemma would only apply to claims to certainty if correct. Enter properly basic beliefs. Properly basic beliefs are such that you don’t have to justify them in order to be justified in believing them. One way this can be the case is if the truth of a belief is apparent to you in a significant way and that belief has no defeaters or reasons for doubting its true. For example, the external world, we experience it every day and have no reason for thinking its not there beyond the possibility that its not. So one could say that even though we aren’t certain, we are justified in believing the external world exists.

Reformed epistemology argues that this is the case with God. God is something many people experience and have no reason for doubting. So for them at least, their belief in God is justified. This is a weaker claim than the presuppositionalist’s, but it is similar in some ways. Reformed epistemologists like Alvin Plantinga agree with the presuppositionalist that arguments for God’s existence are not needed and that a defensive apologetic is really all that is necessary for Christianity to be rational.

One thing I like about reformed epistemology is that it allows those who don’t have the education to learn about arguments for and against God’s existence to still be rational in their belief of God. Some potential problems include the infamous Great Pumpkin objection. What beliefs couldn’t be considered properly basic under reformed epistemology?

For more information about this view, including a response to some objections see;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_epistemology
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/without_evidence_or_argument.pdf

Presuppositional Calamity Part 2;

This time I thought I’d analyze some of the support, both biblical and otherwise, for presuppositional apologetics, presented by John Frame, J.D. Trimble Chair of theology and philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando California. Here I hope to break down the logic in his arguments and see whether they hold up to scrutiny;

here is the article from which I will be basing my critique; http://www.frame-poythress.org/presuppositional-apologetics/

Section 1; Presupposing God in Apologetic Argument

Frame begins by pointing out that no one learns anything in a vacuum, we all come at various topics and issues, with biases and presuppositions. A truth which is difficult to deny. The author continues by making the additional point that our presuppositions often act as axioms or paradigms of our reasoning, allowing certain conclusions from the inquiries we engage in and blocking others. Some of these presuppositions are inescapable or completely basic to the way we think, like laws of logic or ethical principles. Frame is correct in asserting that both of these presuppositions can be paradigms for our world-view, they prevent us from reaching certain conclusions.

In the beginning of the fourth paragraph John claims that believers know God exists and know Him to be the God of Christianity with certainty. This doesn’t seem to be the case, if this were true it would mean that we can know God’s character, meaning we can know with certainty God will fulfill His promises. The problem is where is room for faith, for trusting God, in this picture? I don’t see any. To support this assertion John cites 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 and 2 Timothy 3:16 of which he says teach that the Spirit gives believers the mind of Christ. Even if we grant that interpretation, that doesn’t lead to the conclusion that believers will know various things with certainty, it could simply mean that the way a believer thinks in terms of priorities is changed. Frame goes on to cite 1 John 5:7 though he probably meant to include 8-11 as well. But all this passage affirms is that we have the testimony of God in us, by how we were changed by God, and all this requires is that God’s presence in our lives is apparent to us, not certain.

To summarize the next couple paragraphs, Frame basically says that spiritual warfare is intellectual as well as moral, which is certainly true, no disagreement here. However, John then goes on to say that Peter uses the Word of God as a trump card, “the only source of supernatural knowledge” to defeat his opponents in debate. Frame acts as if Peter used the Bible as his only tool of apologetics. While it is true that Peter used the Bible (which I know was only the Old Testament back then) as  a tool to convince, it certainly wasn’t his only tool. And the reason he merely quoted scripture here is because he was speaking to Jews, who shared the same point of view as he did.

Frame goes on to put another premise in place in his main argument for presuppositional apologetics. He argues that because non-Christians hold different presuppositions than Christians, Christians could never present an argument which could convince the non-Christian. Here Frame gets very tangled in a mess of poor reasoning. For one thing, Frame seems to assume that all of our presuppositions are axioms that we hold without question. This is simply not the case, we all presume at least some of the various ethical principles we hold to, but beyond an emotional response many of us would be willing to re-examin those principles upon an objection like pointing out an inconsistency between two or more of those presupposed principles. A second problem occurs when the author states; “But if the apologist presents an argument that does not presuppose the truths of scripture, how can he be faithful to his Lord? And how can he produce an intelligible argument unless he presupposes those conditions that are necessary for intelligibility?” It seems as though John is assuming here that 1) basic Christian doctrines must be presupposed in order to believed at all and 2) Christian doctrine lays the foundation for all reasoning and inquiry. Both of these seem pretty absurd when brought to the foreground, and thus far we have seen no solid support for either.

Unfortunately the mistakes continue as Frame claims that there is no neutrality between Christians and non-Christians presuppositions. If I understand him correctly, John seems to be saying that there are no common presuppositions between any two world-views, or sets of presuppositions. If thats the case then I’m quite perplexed as to how one could think this. At the very least one could say that Christians and non-Christians alike presuppose that logic is a reliable path to truth. What’s worse is how Frame supports his assertion, using Matt. 6:24. How, I ask, does Jesus saying “one cannot serve two masters” support the assertion that Christians and non-Christians cannot hold to similar presuppositions? Is Frame suggesting here that to hold to any presupposition made by a non-believer is to try to serve two masters? If so, then what if a non-believer holds to the presupposition that God exists, or presupposes Christian ethics? John then concludes by saying that the Bible must be the ultimate criterion of truth in error. Ok lets grant that assertion, what does that get us? All that means is that if something contradicts the Bible then the Christian cannot hold it to be true. Ok, so what? How does this require the Christian to presuppose the truth of God’s Word in the arguments he/she uses in defense of the faith? It may require that Christians hold to the truth of God’s Word regardless of arguments and evidence, but that doesn’t negate the use of such arguments to bolster one’s beliefs and/or lead others to Christ.

2. The Problem of Circularity

Having attempted to establish that the only way to argue to Christianity is from Christianity, John Frame now attempts to address the obvious circular reasoning in such a proposal by claiming that a good defense is a good offense. In other words, in order to defend Christianity, assuming that scripture is the axiom of all the believers thoughts and reasoning, one must critique the consistency of the axioms proposed by competing world-views. There is no doubt that pointing out inconsistencies in someone else's worldview is an effective critique, but it also assumes neutrality, that is the common assumption that in order for a system of thought to even be possibly true, it must be logically consistent. Frame doesn’t seem to notice this, but does point out that such a method of apologetics could never prove Christianity to be true, and so would disagree with his interpretation of Romans 1:20, that all non-believers are without excuse for not believing in Christianity.

Finally, John gives 4 points which represent his views on how to do apologetics effectively;

1) Circular reasoning is unavoidable, it exists in every system of thought. All of our reasoning is ultimately circular.

2) There are two types of circular arguments; Narrowly circular arguments such as the Bible is the Word of God because it is the Word of God, which are not persuasive, and broadly circular arguments like the argument from fulfilled prophecy, which Frame says is circular because it must be in accord with a biblical world-view and epistemology.

3) Here Frame states, “God created our minds to think within the Christian circle: hearing God’s Word obediently and interpreting our experience by means of that Word. That is the only legitimate way to think, and we cannot abandon it to please the unbeliever. A good psychologist will not abandon reality as he perceives it to communicate with a delusional patient; so must it be with apologists.”

4) Ultimately saving knowledge of God must come from God’s grace, not from human reasoning.

Response;

1) Disagree; not all reasoning is circular, take logic for example, it is what could be considered an inescapable or self-evident truth because in order to deny logic, one must first affirm it. I also don’t think even given that all of our reasoning is based in unjustified assertions or presuppositions that our reasoning is forced into circular reasoning. Think about what circular reasoning is, you are saying that they believe something is true, because it is true, why can’t someone say they believe something is true for no reason at all? It would still be irrational but it wouldn’t be circular reasoning.

2) This one is tricky, again it seems like Frame is assuming the Bible prescribes a specific epistemology, which is not shared by other world views and is not self-evident. This claim seems peculiar as I don’t know of any epistemology which would be considered the epistemology taught in the Bible, perhaps Frame means to say that the Bible prescribes itself as the ultimate epistemic tool, if thats the case, doe Frame seriously think that the Bible gives us all of the information there is to know? If so then Frame is simply mistaken. If Frame means to imply that the Bible says that all of our knowledge should come from God, then that doesn’t mean we would have to presuppose  the Bible in order to prove the Bible, it seems possible that God could give us knowledge which helped us prove the Bible through scientific or philosophical means. Even if there is no neutral or shared presuppositions God could give us knowledge which, even granting another’s presuppositions led to the conclusion that Christianity is true. As an example of this concept take a look at the Kalam Cosmological argument. If someone presupposed that science was reliable and that causation was universal (two presuppositions which appear to be quite neutral indeed), that someone could be led from those presuppositions to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning and requires a cause. Here we have someone being led to new conclusions based on presuppositions which many Christians and non-believers hold to.

3) Here Frame proposes that we must think within the Christian world-view. What is this supposed to mean? Must every thought we think be about Christ or the recital of a verse? Certainly not! At the very least we could propose a hypothetical situation or set of propositions and test their consistency and soundness, which is what all rational discourse centers around. Frame acts like you have to give mental assent to an argument before you critique it. This is pure absurdity. Am I believing Frames argument now while critiquing him? Such a position seems impossible.

4) Even granting this point, why couldn’t human reasoning (which Frame admits ultimately comes from God) open up an unbelievers mind to Christianity? This would still allow for God’s grace to infuse the knowledge of Him and His salvation into a persons mind and heart. Furthermore, what is unbiblical about believing that theistic arguments for God’s existence are an instantiation of His grace?

3. Ah the Transcendental argument (aka T.A.G.). Here we see a curious move by the presuppositionalist. On the one hand Frame wants to say that you must argue from the Bible and not to the Bible, and yet on the other he wants to use the TAG, a purely philosophical argument, to argue to God’s existence. Even more curious is that even if the TAG argument is successful it would only show that a God exists, and not necessarily the Christian God. But most curious of all is the fact that if Frame is right, we know prima-facie that the TAG argument fails as it must somehow presuppose Christ and the Bible. Frame gives 3 final points responding to possible questions regarding the TAG argument (none of which I’ve raised already).

1) Is it possible to refute all the alternatives to Christian theism? Frame thinks so but doesn’t show how. If it is by most traditional approaches then Frame would be employing the evidentialist method he so deplores. If it is by some other approach consistent with presuppositionalism it will certainly contain circular reasoning, which again would be useless.

2) Is a negative or reductio argument (aka the TAG argument) the only way to show that Christian theism alone grounds intelligibility? Frame says no, Thomas Aquinases first cause argument, if successful would show that ultimately intelligibility is rooted in God. I don’t see how that would work. Frame seems to think, like most proponents of the TAG argument, that the laws of logic are not self-evident, but some abstract objects needing a cause. How Frame could reject the incorrigibility of logic I don’t know, and how a fundamental truth of reasoning could have a cause I know not either. In any case Aquinas’s case would only show that God is the source of all change or all movement from potentiality to actuality. Obviously nothing in the laws of logic would involve such a movement.

3) Is the transcendental argument a simplification of apologetics? A simplification of apologetics I would see as a good thing, the more objections you can knock out with an argument the stronger that argument is. Frame seems to disagree, belaboring the point that presuppositionalists still have to go on the defensive, answering proposed contradictions within the Bible etc (which seems like what they were trying to avoid in the first place but whatever).

Conclusion;

Presuppositionalism, as it is presented by Frame and others, has some serious problems to deal with. On the one hand, it wants to say that human reason is useless due to the noetic effects of total depravity. All reason ultimately is based on circular reasoning. On the other hand the presuppositionalist wishes to affirm that all reasoning we use is based upon the truth of Christianity and the Christian God. They want to say that the Bible is what we must use to prove the Bible, but then go on to use philosophy to prove their view is correct. Presuppositionalism seems to be as vague and as unhelpful as Objectivism. Disturbingly it uses much the same ways of thinking. Objectivism argues that God’s existence is not self evident but is logically impossible, because if He did exist He would have to exist outside of existence. This is because all that can exist is the universe… for some reason. Similarly Presuppositionalism says that God is actually self-evident, because reason presupposes God’s existence, again, for some unknown reason (perhaps because the Bible says so or because of some circular philosophical argument). I’ve heard and will look into more in another post that the original work of Van Til and Clark is much more sophisticated and coherent than the babble that Frame puts forth. Indeed it seems Frame wishes to somehow combine the two views of Van Til and Clark. The problem is, Clark thought Christianity was unprovable while Van Til thought Christianity was self-evident (which kind of makes sense of the mess Frame put himself in).

Suffering and evil;

And underlying assumption of the problem of natural evil is that suffering is evil. But do we have any good reason to think this is the case? Surely suffering cannot be evil in the sense of identity, nor can suffering be a subset of evil, for there are many sufferings one might consider good, enduring the pain of training to run a marathon, or simply the mental stress of staying up all night studying for finals. These sufferings would seem to be beneficial. Therefore, if suffering has any correlation to evil it is in the form of some S are E where S equals suffering and E equals evil. This is assuming, of course, the fundamental presupposition upon which this particular form of the problem of evil is based, that those things which do harm are evil, and those which benefit are good. But it seems to me that if the problem of natural evil, is to do irreparable damage to the Christian religion, it must operate on the premise that natural evil is inconsistent with Christian views of the nature God, goodness, and man. This naturally brings up the question; must Christianity operate under the presupposition that what harms is evil and what benefits is good?

Lets assume for a moment that Christianity must operate on said principle, what would this mean for the problem of natural evil? First of all, one must consider what would be considered harmful and beneficial on Christianity. Obviously, one would have to place spiritual concerns above physical concerns as any damage to one soul would be permanent and much more weighty (leading one to either the destinations of heaven or hell), barring intervention from God, whereas physical harm would be temporal and much more reparable (through medicine, surgery etc...). Because of this physical sufferings which bring about spiritual benefit would be reasonably considered good under a Christian worldview. Even with these considerations alone, we see a theodicy forming in response to the natural problem of evil. It could be supposed that all natural suffering preforms some function which benefits the spirit of an individual, and thus would be considered good. Granted significant objections could be raised against such a theodicy. For example, what about those who become embittered because of there suffering and grow to despise all that is good? Given such objections, it seems reasonable only to regard such a theodicy as a partial theodicy and not a complete theodicy against the natural problem of evil.

But what considerations should we take into account in regards to the principle that whatever harms is evil and whatever benefits is good? One more basic consideration would certainly be that given a Christian worldview, such a principle would, at the very least, be incomplete. For one thing, such a principle would not, by itself, allow for the concept of justice. Justice would require punishing harm with harm and benefit with benefit. Justice, being essential to Christian ethics, must be taken into consideration when discussing the problem of natural evil from a Christian perspective. Indeed, given justice, at least some forms of suffering may be due to God justly punishing those who have committed wrongs. Again this would only be a partial theodicy as making it a complete theodicy would lead to the conclusion that innocent children and even the unborn are deserving of suffering, and furthermore, that every suffering we do endure is an indication of some sin we've committed. Nevertheless, some suffering does seem to come about as a consequence of our actions (global warming may be one such example). 

There are perhaps dozens more considerations to take into account when analyzing the problem of natural evil within a Christian worldview, but this at least gives a brief introduction into how I have dealt with such a challenge to the Christian worldview.

Is doubt a bad thing?

Many Christians think that doubting is a sin. That to question scripture is to be unfaithful. But this is to oversimplify the matter. Merely Questioning scripture is not the issue, in fact questioning scripture is necessary for growing in faith. Allow me to explain what I mean; imagine a Christian studying scripture and coming across a contradiction. What should the Christian do? Simply ignore the contradiction? Certainly not, the Biblical way to approach the issue would be to research the issue while being open to there being an answer. This includes meditation, prayer, and researching scholarly commentaries. This is Biblical doubt. Damaging doubt would be to say something along the lines of, "How could God confuse me in this way? Surely God is cruel to have done this!" See the difference? One has hope that God will allow us to find an answer, the other is without hope in Christ. Oddly enough such worldly doubt can and most often is brought about by blind faith. When we think that we must not ask questions for the sake of our faith we block ourselves off from the understanding such inquiries would bring. Thus in doing so we damage our faith instead of preserving it.

Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?

This is an objection which has always fascinated me, as there is more than one argument behind it. For example one line of reasoning would be this; If God answers prayers, why has He never, in recorded history healed an amputee? I mean if you would think that God would find it appropriate to do at least once right?

First of all, how do we know God hasn’t? Second of all if you are going to be consistent in your objection you have to take into account Jesus healing the roman soldier by re-attaching his ear. Thirdly, how could we know that there would be an appropriate time in which God would want to answer such a prayer? Fourthly, the whole premise this argument is based upon is flawed, why should we believe that there would be an appropriate time for God to answer this kind of prayer? There are many different things people have asked for which God has not granted as far as we know. For example; that we may live to be 200 years old, or that our deadly food allergy to peanuts would go away, or that people with dwarfism would become taller. Note that all of these examples are around the same degree of urgency as an amputation, which is not that much.

Ok so as an issue to the effectiveness of prayer this isn’t a useful objection, but what about the problem of evil? Why does God allow amputees to go through all this suffering?

The answer to this relates to my last point above, if you have a peanut allergy, you stay away from peanuts, if you have dwarfism you have to learn to adapt, and if you have an amputated leg or arm, you have to learn to adapt. I mean to expect God to get rid of these issues for you is extremely self-centered and small-minded. Imagine if God did do such things, would we have made the advances in medicine that we have? Doubtful, we would have no reason to. Now of course, I’m not saying that amputees shouldn’t pray to God for strength to get through their predicament, we all need that strength and mercy, but we should ask what we can learn from our mistakes, and from our suffering, how we can gain from it, before we go complaining about it.

I’m sure there are more ways this question is used, but these two cover the main objections drawn from this question. But, what do you think about this issue? Is this question problematic for theists, or is it just simply based upon flawed assumptions?

Interesting vid on evolution;

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm

Talks about the extremely similar chromosomes of humans and chimpanzees, as well as a fusion of two chimp chromosomes in human D.N.A. confirming that we did, in fact, come from apes.

A question of knowledge

According to Justified True Belief or JTB, a proposition is known when someone believes it is true, and it is in fact true. One thing I find odd about this view is that it makes it possible to know something, without actually knowing that you know it. Take the example of someone trying to fix a computer. They believe that the issue is a particular virus, but they aren’t certain. As it turns out, they were correct, and so according to JTB they had knowledge without certainty. Is this possible?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/

Opinions?

Its funny how much I hear internet atheists say; opinions are like penises, everyones got one, but we would all appreciate it if you would stop shoving it in our faces. The irony is how many atheists abuse the internet in sharing their opinions, I can understand having your own blogs, websites and forums, but atheist will often comment on Christian videos that have nothing to do with apologetics and mock Christian beliefs. And yes many if not most of said atheists would agree that Christians should stfu about their religious beliefs. This is just one of the major dialectical tensions in the New Atheist movement, they seem to want people to be more cautious about voicing their opinions, but at the same time they call for atheists to ridicule religious beliefs and be more and more outspoken. I’m not sure how these two desires can be reconciled without completely discrediting the N.A. movement. But then again, to a large extent the movement already has been discredited.

Presuppositional calamity

Presuppositional apologetics makes many claims. But some of the more humorous of these claims is made on carm.org. Specifically this article; http://carm.org/presuppositional-apologetics

Now CARM aka Christian Apologetics Research ministry has made many many fallacious claims in virtually all of its articles. The article above is no exception, as we shall soon see.

The Author of this article, Matt Slick, starts out by explaining his view of Total Depravity. Matt argues that because of our fallen nature those who are regenerate cannot convince the unregenerate that God exists and died for our sins with evidence. Not only is this demonstrably false (many people have converted to Christianity because of the evidence for it) the passage he uses, Romans 1:18-22 doesn’t even support his view all that well.

"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,”

While this passage no doubt is consistent with total depravity, it does not imply at all that people cannot be convinced by evidence. Indeed verse 19 seems to indicate the opposite, that everyone has been convinced from the evidence around them (if you want to use Matt’s own sloppy interpretation of course). Thus to use these verses in support of Matt’s view seems to be no less than foolish. 

Matt continues with a second verse to support his view 1 Corinthians 2:14 which states; 

"14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."

It seems to me a more accurate interpretation of these is that what is known about God, or God’s general revelation, is obvious or intuitive from creation and natural men understand it, but that God’s special revelation, the things of the Spirit of God, are not understood by men and can only be understood by God’s grace. So these verses do not seem to be saying that men cannot be convinced that Christianity is true, but that spiritual truths cannot be understood by natural men, without the grace of God. Its also unclear why God could not use evidence to bring people to Christ. Could God not open peoples minds to perceive the evidence and understand it to be convincing? Here Matts claims are far too vague to be of any use, if he wants to show the Bible supports his view, he needs to do more than quote a few verses.

Matt then gives this fictitious conversation as an illustration of his thought process;

"Allen:  I am an atheist and evolutionist.  Prove to me there is a God.
Paul:   I do not think I can do that, because of your presuppositions.
Allen:  Why not?
Paul:  Because your presuppositions will not allow you to examine without bias the evidence that I present to you for God's existence. 
Allen: That is because there is no evidence for God's existence.
Paul:  See?  There you go.  You just confirmed what I was stating.
Allen:  How so?
Paul:  Your presupposition is that there is no God; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show His existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no God.  If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect.  If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria.  If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies.  So, I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it.  It is limited.
Allen: It is not limited.
Paul:  Yes it is.  Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine God's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of His existence.  Don't you see?  If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.
Allen:  I see your point, but I am open to being persuaded, if you can.
Paul:  Then, I must ask you, what kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence?  I must see what your presuppositions are and work either with them or against them.”


This conversation seems horribly contrived, and doesn’t make much sense when one takes a closer look. Matt seems to think that to hold to atheism means to hold that atheism is an axiom which governs all other reasoning. So if someone presents evidence of God’s existence, the atheist will merely reject it on the basis of his axiom, which of course is circular reasoning. Thus Matt here appears to be arguing that it is impossible not to argue in a circle, we all have presuppositions which we hold to without good reason. I’d recommend that Matt do some research in the area of epistemology and familiarize himself with properly basic beliefs. Properly basic beliefs are such that they are either self evident or incorrigible. An example would be the external world, because the external world is apparent to us but we cannot verify nor falsify its true nature, we are rational in believing it is the way we experience it without evidence.


Another interesting point occurs when the character Paul states, "If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect.  If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria.  If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies.  So, I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it.  It is limited.”


Whether Matt realizes it or not, he is making an entirely different point here. This doesn’t imply that the atheist views his atheism as axiomatic, but that he raises objections to various evidences for God’s existence, which is precisely what an atheist needs to do. Its astonishing to me that Matt Slick thinks this way, because raising objections and responding to them, is simply how reasoning works in any area of life, you cannot say its futile, otherwise you are saying that arguing over any issue is pointless, and thus it is inexplicable why Matt bothered to write this article.


Of course these are just a few bizarre things I’ve found with presuppositional apologetics, or at least its popular interpretations. More critiques of presuppositional apologetics, as well as what I think it gets right, coming soon.

Does Carbon dating work?

Well yes, just not for what creationists think it does (dating the age of the earth); http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APEpwkXatbY&feature=plcp

What is actually used for dating the age  of the earth; http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/02/26/how-old-is-the-earth-and-how-d/, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5369-OobM4&feature=plcp

In researching this material I hope that it becomes obvious that dating the age of the Earth is much much more complex than creationists like to portray it to be, and that we have mountains of evidence suggesting that the Earth is in fact much older than 6 thousand years.

Why don’t Christians follow the Old Testament Law?

This is a question I hear from pretty much any one who doesn’t consider themselves Christian, and quite a few people who do. The answer is very simple, the Old Testament Law isn’t what we as Christians signed up for.

Now I’m sure someone reading this will chuckle at this point, after all, why should it matter what the Christian signed up for? All that matters is what the Bible teaches… isn’t it? Well no, but thats another topic altogether. More importantly the reason it matters what the Christian signed up for is the context in which the Old Testament Law was written. It was written as being a part of the Mosaic covenant, a covenant signed by pledging loyalty to God and His law through circumcision. The New covenant doesn’t involve following the law but instead it means to follow Christ, Christians pledge loyalty to God and this covenant through baptism. For more info on this topic see; http://christianthinktank.com/finaltorah.html, and for a simpler explanation see; http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lawrole.html

The "God" Particle

The Higgs Boson has ignited a great deal of debate between atheists and theists. The controversy in no small part was started by the particles nickname, "the God particle" and has been reinforced by statements made by Michio Kaku and Lawrence Krauss. In this article; http://www.chron.com/life/houston-belief/article/God-particle-discovery-ignites-debate-over-3720855.php Lawrence Krauss states, "If we can describe the laws of nature back to the beginning of time without any supernatural shenanigans, it becomes clear that you don't need God.” I’m not certain this is the case. Take the example of a car; we can explain how all the parts fit together, what its composed of, and how it functions but even given all that information we cannot explain where the car came from. For that you need an mechanic and/or an engineer. So one type of explanation does not negate the other. But for the moment lets assume that science can and will give every type of explanation needed to give a complete explanation of the universe, would this eliminate the need for God? Yes, but its important to distinguish this from the question of whether or not God exists. God could still exist but he simply didn’t create the universe. Granted if this were the case the theist would be in a tricky position, as the case for God’s existence would be considerably weakened. But more to the point does the Higgs Boson work towards eliminating God as an explanation of the universe? Hardly, the Higgs simply puts another piece in the puzzle about how the universe works. The Higgs field interacts with various particles, causing them to have mass and move slower than light. The Higgs Boson is a particle which is “emitted” so to speak from this field.[1] Thus if the Higgs exists, it poses no more a threat to the theist than the electro-magnetic force.


Michio Kaku, however, seems to disagree. He states that the Higgs “sparked” the Big Bang, and that because of this religious explanations for how the universe came to exist are rendered obsolete [2]. This seems partially true, but from my research it seems that what the Higgs really does is allow mass to exist at the Big Bang. Thus without the Higgs no particles today would have mass, there would be no galaxies, no stars, and no atoms [1]. But what I cannot find is any article which suggests that the Higgs explains why there was a singularity and why it expanded in the first place. So if I understand what Michio is talking about correctly, then he is completely misunderstanding how causation works. Explaining what happened at the Big Bang is a far cry from explaining what caused it, just as explaining the order in which parts were put together to form a car doesn’t explain how those parts got there. If I am misunderstanding, perhaps someone can correct me, if not, I would recommend Kaku and Krauss take a class in the basics of logic and/or an introduction to the philosophy of causality.


For more commentary on this topic see; http://www.reasonablefaith.org/higgs-boson-discovered
1) http://www.forbes.com/sites/allenstjohn/2012/07/09/the-higgs-boson-what-you-should-know-about-what-it-is-and-what-it-does/2/
2) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304141204577508622617259052.html

No possible way to justify Christian belief?

I'm often surprised at the bluntness of many skeptics, particularly those who espouse the problem of evil as an utter disproof of God. I often hear them say "there is no possible argument you could give that would show that a good and loving God could allow such suffering to occur around the world." Or "There is no way Christianity can be reasonable, as it is committed to be based on faith, which is belief without reason." These statements are text book examples of the fallacy known as poisoning the well. And they are yet another way skeptics slither out of any burden of proof, as they are an attempt to discredit any argument made in favor of a position before it is even made.

Now if the skeptic first gave a critique of every argument made by Christians in support of Christianity and then proceeded to state that there is no good reason to believe Christianity then that would be one thing. However, what the skeptic is saying here is not only that there are no good refutation of the problem of evil, but that there could never be any good refutations. This seems to espouse that it is knowable a-priori that God cannot exist while evil exists. So basically the skeptic is asserting a tautology between the two statements; evil exists and God does not exist. But to assert such a tautology without proper justification is tantamount to circular reasoning. Ironically such a strong claim would require a very powerful argument to demonstrate such an argument.

Some thoughts on tough questions posed to Christians related to the POE;

Why did God have to die on the cross to save us, why didn't He just save us?

Because if God's nature is essentially just He had to pay the price for us. Perhaps God could have saved us without dying on the cross, but in doing so He would be unjust. Thus at the cross we see a perfect harmony between justice and mercy. The result is what Christians consider the greatest act of love in history.

Ok so why didn't God just save everyone after dying on the cross?

Because of what it means to be saved. To be saved, one has to have faith and believe in God. This is something, I believe, which can only come from a genuine choice in people. So if God were to save everyone after dying on the cross, He would have to ensure that we all believe in Him. But this seems to take the genuine choice away. Thus, if this were to happen, everyone would have a relationship with God, but it would be more of a relationship between a hand and a puppet than a genuine relationship between two entities choosing to interact with one another. And if God's goal is to allow us to genuinely and freely know Him, then ensuring that everyone is saved after dying on the cross would undermine everything God worked for. Of course this explanation requires libertarian free will, if Calvinists are correct and we have a purely compatibilist form of freedom, than this view would not be cogent.

God has created so many diseases and so many things which harm humanity, but science has cured them all. Doesn't this show that science is more powerful that God?

This question I get asked a lot by atheists. And one thing it assumes is that God's purpose is to make us happy, and reduce our suffering. I'm curious, since when have Christians claimed this? Maybe some radical prosperity preachers have. In either case I would simply ask the atheist, if God didn't put those harmful things in our way, would we bother to discover the cures for them, would we invent new technologies to overcome them? And if we did, would it be as meaningful? A life that is simply about instant gratification and comfort doesn't seem to hold much meaning or value. And before you ask "what about heaven?" as atheists often do, Christians don't think heaven will be simply sitting on a cloud eating grapes, heaven may be devoid of suffering (but then again perhaps not), but I'm certain there will be challenges and things to overcome.

Internet atheists obsession with God

These are just a few of the comments posted by atheists on the vid; “Glory to God by FEE”, sad very sad indeed.

He has come to save us from our sins>> There is no evidence for the salvation story.... And yes, many died in the Old Testiment because of punishment of sin,>>>

You seem to agree that those petty transgressions(E.G.working on the sabbath) deserve the dead-penalty. Are you ? He said explicitly that the law(the O.T.) remains valid till the end of time.(not exactly in those words).

And yes, many died in the Old Testiment because of punishment of sin, >>> Do you defend that those petty transgressions( working on the Sabbath, fornication etc etc.) deserve the death-penalty ? Why is the god of the O.T. so cruel, blood-thirsty, angry, murderous, and that SAME god in the N.T. preaches... love your ennemies. Moreover he did not abolish the O.T.>>> Not an iota of the law will change untill the end of time.<<

If someone refuses the Gospel, they didn't say no to you; they said no to God. How silly and arrogant. They said NO to nobody, but are not willing to accept as truth without evidence. And if this (supposedly)LOVING god condenms me for using my brain, so be it. The word of god seems to defeat itself.

Glory to god !!Witches, kill them. Homosexuals, kill them.fortunetellers, kill them. those who don`t listen to priests, kill them. those hitting their dad, kill them. those who curse their parents, kill them, adulterers, kill them. fornicators, kill them. people who believe in other religions, kill them. non-believers,kill them. fals prohets ,kill them. blasphemers, kill them. those who work on the Sabbath, kill them. This is the word of god !

Heavan and hell, should they exist,, can be anywhere. Since spirits, ghosts, souls, have no substance and do not take any space, a  trillion souls can fit in the cavity of your belly button. Heaven and hell can be next to each other in there. The idea of heaven and hell is childish nonsense.

I did not face any particular hardships in life, and I am at an age which most probably you will never reach. I cannot accept that god lets everything happen for our good . For what good were 6 million jews murdered in WW 2 ? For what good did 100,000 INNOCENT children perish in Haiti ? And another 100,000 INNOCENT children in the great tsunami ? Did those things happen because we were given the power of choice ?

• some comments by ndzoko

I will prove to you may be in half an hour or so. That you have no clue what`s in your bible. Yes you will get all the verses, no excuse now.

@CaptainKomamuraLover: Deuteronomie 17:12.. exodus 22:17... Leviticus 20:27.. Exodus 21:25 ... Proverbs 20:20..,, Leviticus 20:9... Leviticus 20:10... Leviticus 21:9.....Exodus31:12:15.....De­uteronomie 13:1.5... Leviticus 24:10.16... Deuteronomie 13:7.12. If you want more, just tell me >

Glory to god: It says in the bible... Wiches, kill them. homosexuals, kill them. Fortunetellers, kill them. Those who don`t listen to priests, kill them. Those who hurt their father, kill them Those who curse their parents, kill them. Adulterers. kill them Fornicators kill them ,Those who work on the Sabbath kill them. Non believers, those who believe other religions ,false prophets, blasphemers.Kill them. Glory to god forever !!

• talliza

Another thing, it is not a lie that you are ignorant. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. You cannot argue that you are not ignorant, for everyone is ignorant from the day they are born the the day they die. You weren't created by god, either. If you have ANY knowledge of modern biology, NOT bronze age "science" then you know that it is not a god that makes you, but two cells from your parents. I doubt you've read all of the replies I gave to yours, because if you did, and you took

anything from them, you would know that what I say is more right than you'll ever realize. A life without god is one well spent. Atheists are free to be under their own judgement, rather than one of another. We are free to be ourselves without being stoned by our peers for being "fags." And yes, I am bisexual. If I had any remote belief in the existence of your hell, I'd be in it regardless of whether I was a Christian or not.

Read Deuteronomy. My life is as meaningful to myself as I need it to be. I don't live in fear of judgement by some "loving" deity. I live my life without fear of a hell that doesn't exist. Besides, I don't want to be in your heaven. Christian heaven is a horrible place. Free will is justified by having a choice between the concepts of good and evel, but if you take evil out of the equation, we're puppets. I don't want to go to heaven, nor do I wish to go to hell. I reject both. 

I have nothing else to say to someone who is both willfully ignorant, and insufferably frustrating.

• MrBooger66

So god hates gays but loves Homophonic, ignorant, Hating, fearful little people? Strange god.

God sounds like a douchebag to me. Anyone that hates people for who they are, has no place called themself the almighty.

( This is not a hate post to all christians, just the douchebags that hate evreything that they dont understand).

these bastards have been indoctrinated and brainwashed since they were born, they can't help it. It is kind of scary though, it's like they're part of a cult or something. Which they actually are, they just don't think of it that way. I mean, seriously?! This guy tells you "its okay your just lost... listen to the music.... youll here him calling you... just listen." What the fuck? It's scary.

you pompous presumptious prick. Don't pray for us. You insult our intelligence. Most atheists have studied the word better than Christians have, that's why we became atheists in the first place. How about you study that book a little more, notice some of the massive holes? Oh, and what proof do I have that God is not loving? I can't prove that god is or isn't loving because he doesn't exist. Have you ever heard of "burden of proof?" Prove to me that god exists..

You claim to be tolerant? You think your religion is a religion of peace? Listen to yourself! You call me an atheist as though it's a bad word. You stereotype me and my beliefs. You "hate Atheists like me." You guys can stick your annoying noses into any video you like to preach God until we're blue in the face, but you don't like it when we do the same? You hypocrite! Go read your bible some more. True Christians are wonderful people, but you're a two-faced phony.

• User1maximus

What silly nonsense. Just tell me how our sin created polio, small-pox, leprosy or any other disease. Thank you !!

As somebody said;"If the holy writer uses general terms, an ingenious theologian can harmonize a seemingly preposterous statement with the most obdurate fact.'' You can find and prove anything with the bible,, just stretch your imagination to the limit. The old-testament is the greatest accumulation of nonsense ever assembled by man.

More bible nonsense called" biblical science "

The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9)

A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44).

The moon is a light source like the sun (Gen 1:16

God created polio, science cured it. God created small pox, science cured it. God created leprosy, science cured it. God created 2.million different illnesses, science has found cures for many. God created infertility, science invented IN-VITRO and an estimated 15 million new lives. God`s life averaged 45 years, science extended it to 75. 100.000 innocent children died in Haiti suffocating beneath the rubble. This ALLMIGHTY god, didn`t lift a finger to help.Praise be to god !!

• lizazoon

"He died on the cross to wash the sins out of us"

Well if hes omnipotent, couldn't he have thought of a better way to forgive people for sin than sending down himself to sacrifice himself to himself??? Why no just forgive??? He makes the rules right?

"you have your beliefs and we have our own but still dosnt mean you have the right to come on to this video and say gay"

Oh, I have EVERY right to call this video "gay" if I wan't to. Don't like it? Have your god stop me, LMFAO!

• Mattm1986

@jg1007 No, i am not. Firstly, substantiate your statement of "No matter how far you go with science, you always come to a dead end". Has science not brought us all the technology we now use? I think it's ironic that you can type that on a platform brought about by science and knowledge. And no, rejecting an idea due to a lack of evidence is not the same as refusing to acknowledge the possibility or seeking questions to fit an answer already in mind.

Rather, rejecting an idea due to a lack of evidence shows my willingness to consider it in the first place, and THEN finding it wanting. You, on the other hand, have demonstrated by your preference of believing "that something created something out of nothing, than the believe that nothing created something out of nothing" that you are merely seeking answers,explanations, without considering their validity or probability,something to assay your fears and put the world in terms you can understand

• ArianaSnow

Hey stupid, i'm not forcing you to read these comments, that's your own choise. This video is posted on a PUBLIC FORUM and ANYONE may post his ideas/thoughts. This is NOT a place reserved for the religious only. Don't like it? Too fucking bad son. Go take your faith to where the sun doesn't shine.

If he'd show up one day, then i'd believe he'd exist. But even then i wouldn't follow his ideas. But so far, he's nowhere to be seen. Only in your own fantasy world.

He's a gentlemen? I'd rather compare him to a barbarian, satanist or a mass murderer. First testament.

Now, why would all-knowing god... who can see the future, give man a choise? He could've known i wouldn't beleive in him... yet he created me. So isn't me not believing in him not his idea in the first place?

The only religion with consequences? Are you seriously THAT ignorant? The concept of hell exists in islam too. Plenty of others have it aswell. Which religion is the right one? What makes christianity the one and only true religion and all others false? No matter what religion i choose, i'm going to end up in hell any way since they all claim i will go to hell if i dont join them. How come your all powerful and mighty god couldn't convince me to believe in him? Did he fail?

Yeah, everything the bible says is true... and the earth is flat aswell. Oh, wait...

• Black7Cloud

U cant claim that your deity created the sun. There is not a shred of evidence that God exists (which is why we call it faith). I can render some lame counterargument, like "My god created your god, and since he created your god, your god's work is my God's will" but that is pointless. If you give me one solid piece of evidence that God exists,without resorting to the Testaments, or conjuring a metaphorical personification, then your argument can have some support.

Jamopt777. . . The eyes regaining sight can come from cataract surgery, the legs growing can be credited to metabolism in the body. Scientists have searched for your deity for half a century now, and haven't found him. Your god also seems to contradict himself: if he loves everyone, why does he send unbaptized babies to purgatory, and people to hell? Seems very bipolar to me.

• rustaayy
  
  
  This is all from one Christian music video. ONE. It shows me that not only are many atheists not willing to seriously engage with Christians on various topics, but that all they wish to do is to mock and ridicule.