Jump to content

Walk Softly

Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

51 Excellent

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

68 profile views
  1. Walk Softly

    Evidence VS. Proof

    It's interesting to me that you are still trying to make my thread about a discussion of evolutionary theories. If I was keen on discussing that topic, I would have made that the crux of my commentary, instead of a simple statement to build the real intent of my thread. 🙂 It seems to make you uncomfortable that, in good conscience, I can make a statement like that and not feel a need to back it up. I have spent a great deal of time evaluating the evidence for evolution and I personally found it lacking. You see, when secular scientists operate on the assumption that there is no God, they are literally forced to interpret the evidence in a way that supports their position. Christians do this too. The point I made, which you clearly missed, was that no amount of counter evidence will change their mind if they are intelligent. Therefore, the debate, much like the one you seem dead set on dragging me into, is pointless. I don't waste my time in that arena much (unless He tells me to). I'm completely comfortable with my evaluation of the evidence and there is rarely a time that I need to argue in support of said evaluation. Why? Because there is something much more powerful than evidence. It's called proof. Unbelievers cannot account for laws of logic, uniformity in nature (upon which all of science is built, including the ever so precious theories of evolution) and absolute morality. If they cannot account for those things, why waste my time debating evolution? There are plenty of very intelligent scientists that believe very much in evolution. Not because they are dumb, not because they are looking at different sets of data, but because they have to in order to support their worldview. Twice you insinuated that I was arrogant and finally, you straight up called me arrogant. On your second post insinuating I was being arrogant, you even finished it with a verse about being nice to others... Lol. Romans 12:18 I find it much more arrogant to step into someone else's thread and tell them what they should and should not say because of your feelz. Even more so when it is quite evident that wasn't part of point of the thread. I mean, I guess it was part of the point in an ironic kind of way, but I'm assuming that irony was lost on you as well. If you want to have a discussion on the merits for and against evolutionary theories, start a thread and do so, I'd certainly read it. This particular thread is about the unbelievers inability to account for the preconditions of intelligibility as outlined in my original posts. Eventually, when I get a chance to write it up, I'll show how the other main religions can't stand up to scrutiny either. It'll be fun. Take care, Thomas.
  2. Walk Softly

    Evidence VS. Proof

    Lol. That's a bit of a stretch. The NWT changes the meaning of the message, so no... Anyone with discernment of the Holy Spirit would correctly reject it as a viable translation. Here is just one example. John 1:1 - The original Greek text reads, "the Word was God." The NWT renders it as "the word was a god." Thats not biblical.
  3. Walk Softly

    Let's Start a Dialogue

    Thats an interesting response. Had you asked me previously and maybe I missed it?
  4. Walk Softly

    Evidence VS. Proof

    Hi Thomas, Would a debate into the merits of evolutionary theories change the status of your salvation? Do you think it would change mine? Do you think it strengthens or weakens the Body Of Christ when two believers argue over an issue that doesn't have anything to do with salvation? Notice that I haven't, and nor will I, ask you to back up your stance on evolution because your interpretation of the evidence has no bearing on mine. For we don’t live for ourselves or die for ourselves. If we live, it’s to honor the Lord. And if we die, it’s to honor the Lord. So whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. Christ died and rose again for this very purpose—to be Lord both of the living and of the dead. So why do you condemn another believer ? Why do you look down on another believer? Remember, we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For the Scriptures say, “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord , ‘every knee will bend to me, and every tongue will declare allegiance to God. ’” Yes, each of us will give a personal account to God. So let’s stop condemning each other. Decide instead to live in such a way that you will not cause another believer to stumble and fall. Romans 14:7‭-‬13 Take care, Thomas.
  5. Walk Softly

    Evidence VS. Proof

    Hi Thomas! I didn't back it up because it wasn't the point of my thread. Actually the very point of my thread is quite evident in your response to my thread. I spent a great deal of time articulating why the evidential debate is usually a waste of time. If you are an unbeliever, I'm not interested in that debate because you cannot account for the preconditions of intelligibility so an evolutionary debate is pointless. If you are a brother in Christ, I'm not interested in the debate because you are free to believe as you wish. It makes no difference to me if you think God guided some kind of evolutionary process, as long as you understand and have faith in what Jesus Christ did for you.
  6. Walk Softly

    Evidence VS. Proof

    In regards to Mark 16:9-20, those verses contain no teaching of significance that is not taught elsewhere. For example, Christ’s post-resurrection appearance to Mary is verified in Luke 8:2 and John 20:1-18. In regards to John 7:53 - 8:11, even if you doubt the authenticity of this story, no important Biblical doctrine is placed in doubt because of it. Look, I'm not interested in going through an entire critique of the Word. There are, quite literally, thousands of resources debating the topic back and forth. The real question is whether or not we accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God. I do and I would struggle with the idea of anyone claiming to be a Christian while refusing to accept the Word of God as just that. I see no worldview issues presented here other than ones ability/inability to rest in the Truth of the Bible and its message to those who choose to follow Jesus Christ. The point of this thread was to show that without the Biblical God, there is no foundation for the laws of logic, uniformity in nature and absolute morality. No amount of fanegaling this translation vs that translation will change that.
  7. Walk Softly

    Let's Start a Dialogue

    What does it mean to you?
  8. Walk Softly

    Evidence VS. Proof

    Thanks for taking the time to read my thread and putting together your thoughtful response! It matters not how others "interpret" the Word. God's Word says what it says and nothing is to be added, nor taken away. Anyone who teaches something other than what the Word says is wrong. It's simple, really. Cherry picking verses and manipulating them to fit our worldly perceptions is what leads to the problems you've noted. Those issues are only a problem for the ones who think the Bible doesn't say what it does. They aren't a problem for the Word as it remains faithful and true, forever. Amen. Heaven and earth will disappear, but my words will never disappear. Matthew 24:35 The Word can't be truth if its open to arbitrary worldly interpretation. Make them holy by your truth; teach them your word, which is truth. John 17:17
  9. Walk Softly

    Evidence VS. Proof

    If you are insinuating that laws of logic aren't universal, that's simply not true. To be true, you will need to demonstrate where I can find a place that laws of logic aren't true. For example, where can I find the land of contradictions (which would violate the law of non-contradiction)? Now, while I'm not interested, necessarily, in debating this point, language is universal. What I mean by that is, "two" means the same thing no matter what dialect I use to express it. Also, there is a universal "thing" that exists independently of us. If I draw a 2 on a dry erase board, we would agree that is 2. If I erase that 2, it dissapears from the universe. That's because that wasn't THE 2, it was the numeral 2 which is a representation of the concept of 2ness. A universal "thing." Our perception of color can be different from person to person, this concept has no relation to the laws of logic which don't change and are universal. If laws of logic were only our brains perception of the world, then they wouldn't be universal. They wouldn't extend beyond our own minds. My laws of logic might be entirely different than yours, but this is not the case. No where in the world can my car be in the garage and not in the garage at the same time, despite what my brain might think. Perhaps, you might have confused the laws of logic concept with the idea of thinking logically. We certainly don't always think logically! These are different concepts. That actually brings up another point I mentioned in my thread on laws of logic. If they are nothing more than descriptions of how our brain thinks, why would we need them to correct the way our brain thinks? We would never actually violate them because, simply, our mind thinks the way it thinks. You'd still be stuck trying to explain where those universal laws, that seems to operate independently of our non logical thoughts, come from. If you're thinking at this point that we just use them because they work... That's not actually an answer to the question. You would still need to explain why they work, why they are universal and where they came from, without God.
  10. Walk Softly

    Evidence VS. Proof

    Hey there, @TomatoHorse! Thanks for taking an interest in my thread. I've been tied up with work, but I'll try and get a response to you this evening! Take care.
  11. Walk Softly

    Evidence VS. Proof

    Yep.
  12. Walk Softly

    Let's Start a Dialogue

    Exactly. That's why you have to show the unbeliever that they live a life in direct contradiction to their worldview. Even then, often times they still don't accept it, but it's not our job to convince, only expose.
  13. Walk Softly

    Coming to a library near you? I pray not!

    My heart hurts for these people. If only they knew that this emptiness they are trying to fill will only grow larger in the absence of God. Only God can sufficiently fill the void in our lives, but when we turn to the flesh to fill it, we sink into a bottomless pit of depravity in an attempt to complete ourselves. The further we fall, the harder it is to see the Truth. Romans chapter 1 goes into the unfortunate details of what's happening here. I am constantly amazed at how fast this all seems to be happening out in the open now.
  14. Walk Softly

    Evidence VS. Proof

    Absolute Morality One of the more common objections to God is whether or not He is moral. Right? We've all heard that argument. How can you follow a God who kills people, women and children included, on a whim? After all, it is your God that wiped out almost the entire population in the flood because they did not follow Him! Ugh. How cruel and morally grotesque! In response, most Christians will attempt to defend what God has done. Perhaps you could discuss the issue with the Canaanites and how they were sacrificing infants to the god, Molech. Or you could discuss the absolute depravity of the days preceding the flood and you can try to show how God really did that for our benefit... There are any number of things that we can go back and forth on with the unbeliever. How does that usually work out? Not so great, right? Well, in order to move forward, we need to take on the unbeliever's worldview in order to perform an internal critique to see how it holds up to scrutiny. We can start by asking the unbeliever a simple question like this. Mr. Unbeliever, while I reject the notion that God is immoral, for the sake of argument, let's assume there is no God. In a world where there is no God and we are nothing more than the product of random chemical reactions, on what basis do you judge morality? How do you determine what is good and, therefore, bad? You see, in your worldview, our brains are nothing more than random chemicals fizzing, creating our thoughts and ideals. We evolved from animals. This random fizzing takes away our ability to operate on free will. We can't control the random reactions in our brains. Do we place the tiger in jail for murdering it's prey? No, that would be absurd. Why are our chemical reactions any different than that of the tiger? Do you get upset at the baking soda when it reacts with vinegar? I doubt it. Basically, in a worldview where there is no God, we are random products of our chemical reactions, to which we have no control. Why would we be upset when one set of chemical reactions interacts with another set of chemical reactions? It's survival of the fittest after all! It's nature. We are nothing more than the animals we came from. There are two common responses to this that the unbeliever can present. Personal preference and societal convention. 1. Personal preference. I feel like that is morally bad, so I believe we shouldn't do it. The problem with this is I may not agree with you. I might personally feel my moral responsibility is to kill you and take your stuff. You have absolutely no moral objection to that because morals are based on personal preference. Your preference has no authority over someone else's life. You can't create an ethical system off of preferences. People have different preferences and not all of them are good. That's why we have jails. 2. Societal Convention. Society gets to decide what is morally good and bad and decide we should or should not do something. The problem here is more significant in my opinion. Let's take Hitler as an example. Hitler was elected to his position of power and began to round up all the Jews. Under this societal convention ideology, anyone who said, hey wait, that's a person and I don't think it's right to round them up just because they are a jew, is now the immoral one. Anyone in America who said slavery was wrong was immoral. This means, that in any society, if there is someone fighting for transformation, they are the immoral one. This means you are stuck with society changing morality over time and you cannot go against it because society has decided and to go against that is immoral. If one society decides its moral to round up the minorities and exterminate them, you cannot wage a moral argument against that. That moral objection you feel in your gut... That's just personal preference and extends no further than your brain. Now, even allowing the discussion of personal preference and societal convention is being generous because you still can't point to an external referent with which you can weigh good and bad against. There must be an absolute good to determine where varying degrees of good and bad fall in that. If an unbeliever tries to say that morals are part of the evolutionary process, please refer to the discussion on laws of logic and uniformity in nature. A material world cannot account for the immaterial. A changing random chance universe cannot account for universal and abstract concepts like morals. A mic drop is always recommended when discussing morality with unbelievers. It can go something like this: If we all came from star dust, as Neil DeGrasse Tyson has posited, then how can you justify preference of one set of star dust over another? By doing so, you make it clear you don't live your life believing there is no God. If you place any value in the life of a toddler over that of a mosquito, then you are living as though humans were created in the image of God.
  15. Walk Softly

    Evidence VS. Proof

    Uniformity in Nature All of science rests on the uniformity of nature. Operational science requires this presupposition. - For example, if you perform an experiment today under certain conditions and then you peform the same experiment under the same conditions at a later date, you would expect the results to be same. If the results were different, no one would assume that nature had changed, but instead would assume that a condition of the experiment had changed. All technology is also based on this principle. - If this wasn't the case, then tomorrow morning when you turn your phone on, it might just turn into a piece of broccoli. Poof! This is the presuppositional assumption that unbelievers should live by if they are being true to a random chance universe. The laws of nature are consistent over time and space. The future is similar to the past. - When we step out of an elevator on floor 36, we don't brace ourselves just in case gravity doesn't work the same way on this floor. That would be silly. Do you hold your breath when you walk into a new room just in case all the air gathered in the corner? No, you don't do that because you presupose that nature operates in a consistent way as it has in the past. God upholds the universe in a consistent way for us. He certainly doesn't have to, but He does it for our benefit. See Genesis 8:22. Apart from God, we would have no reason to believe this. Because of the way our brains are wired, we can't know the future. We can remember the past, we experience the present, but we can't know the future. We are able to presume that the future will be like the past only because God tells us so. Common responses from unbelievers. Everyone knows that. - sure, but why is there uniformity? How can you know? This doesn't answer the question. The inherent properties of matter cause it to behave in a uniform way. That's just the way nature is. - This isn't really an answer because we don't really know what the inherent properties of matter are. We only really know what our experiences of matter have been like. Saying that's just the way it is, is not an answer. A Christian could be just as arbitrary and claim the same about Christianity. Welp, that's just the way it is! The future reflects the past because it always has. - This is begging the question. You must presupose that the future will always be like the past, but you have no actual basis for that. We take it for granted that we can use past experiences to assume the future. - We can make some absurd assumptions when we do this. For example, I could say that I'm immortal simply because I've never died before. - What the unbeliever is really saying here is that in the past, the future was like the past. Therefore, in the future the future will be like the past. Unfortunately, as soon as they say therefore, they are crossing a boundary that they have no right to cross. - David Hume and Bertrand Russell concluded that we cannot found the inductive principle on an appeal to experience. The attempt to do so is begging the question. What does this mean? It means that intelligent atheists know that experience can't be the foundation for the inductive principle, so what is? - As Christians, if we really wanted to go on the attack, we could point out that the unbeliever can't even know what happened in the past without assuming their memory is reliable. Unbelievers have no real reason to assume their memories, or even their senses are reliable. Your memory presupposes that the laws of nature are constant over time since they are just chemical reactions. If chemistry and physics were changing, you couldn't even trust your memory. I mean it when I say that without God, you can't know anything. Unbelievers are forced to stand on the Christian foundation to refute Christianity. I'd like to add an additional nugget of truth for you to ponder here. In a debate, Dr. Greg Bahnsen once told his opponent that the very act of showing up to the debate proves he is wrong. By showing up, he had already lost. Let me explain. In a Godless worldview, our brains are just fizzing chemical reactions. Our thoughts are nothing more than random chemical reactions in our brains. We have no real free will as it's a random uncontrolled process. Therefore, the very notion that you can present your ideas with the purpose of changing people's minds is absurd. The mere notion that you came to debate a topic with the intent of changing people's minds shows you are wrong and acting inconsistently with your worldview.
×