Walk Softly

Psychological crutch? Dear unbeliever: what, as an atheist, can you do that I, as a Christian, cannot? Wherein lies this crutch?

We have a lot in common. They were fantastic teachers. They have inspired much of my writings. Obviously. What happened? If it's personal and you don't want to share, no worries. Or if you'd rather move to PM, I'm 100% ok with that. With your knowledge of pressup apologetics, I feel certain we can have great conversations.

Please have a look at this article. It addresses the issues you stated. http://apologeticsguy.com/2016/10/jesus-disciples-illiterate-peasants/

This was so true for myself as well. It's amazing how often I hear this from people.

@Vince I'm being real with you here. The issues you finally stated with the Bible are literally the most common objections to God. All of which I covered in my original posts, including the more in depth discussion you and I had about the inductive principle (upon which we did ultimately agree). While you argue it doesn't prove God, I would argue that it renders the no God worldview as unable to support it's assumptions. So where does that leave you? What great faith it takes to continue believing we just haven't figured it out yet! It is figured it out, brother. It's God. And His revelation to us is the Bible. If you want to reason together, you can pm me anytime. I will listen, I will talk, I will pray... I will do anything to help a brother build his trust in God. I mean it. It is never comfortable to have your worldview shaken. I get that.

Your statements are contradicting. You are saying you don't have enough evidence to believe its the Word of God. Therefore, you don't believe it is the Word of God. Also, it can't be the Word of God if it is immoral, contradicting and illogical as you called it.

Sounds a whole lot like Romans Chapter 1 verse 18 through 32!

Great to see you again, @TomatoHorse! I knew that wasn't going to be the last of you. Call it a conviction. Thank you for the kind words. I assure you I'm neither intelligent nor well read! Firstly, I leave how we move forward entirely up to you, my friend. I find that pm is generally easier for genuine conversation because you aren't interrupted by what we saw earlier today when people are just slinging words back and forth. I almost missed your post, as a matter of fact. But, if you wish to keep this a public spectacle, I'm cool with that too. After all, it was me who made the thread in the first place, so I was definitely prepared to defend it. Secondly, after reading your response, I think I need to take a moment and make sure we are on the same page about some stuff. ALL foundational assumptions are circular in nature. I'm under no illusion that mine isn't (it seemed as though that was where you were headed with your questioning, so I want to be clear I'm not hiding from it). It's impossible to avoid. It's just that the Christian worldview (assuming the ultimate authority of the Bible) is the only one which is able to support itself. No other worldview can account for the preconditions of intelligibility. I think this is where Vince and I got sideways. He wanted me to reason to God (evidential approach). I can't do that. The Bible tells me that everyone knows God already. I refuse to place myself as the lawyer presenting evidence while someone else places themselves as the judge, determining whether or not the evidence proves God. Who do we think we are? Everyone knows in their heart of hearts that God exists. They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Romans 1:19‭-‬21 Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right. Romans 2:14‭-‬15 And they will not need to teach their neighbors, nor will they need to teach their relatives, saying, ‘You should know the Lord .’ For everyone, from the least to the greatest, will know me already,” says the Lord . “And I will forgive their wickedness, and I will never again remember their sins.” Jeremiah 31:34 Because of this, I cannot reason to God, I can only reason from God. It is only when a Christian stands on the Word of God as the ultimate authority that our ability to know anything is accounted for. No other worldview can do this. No other worldview can account for logic, uniformity in nature or absolute morality (which is why it doesn't eat itself under scrutiny like other worldviews do). It certainly takes faith to stand on the Word of God with the whole world telling you exactly what Vince did... We don't know where those things (preconditions of intelligibility) come from and that's ok. Give us enough time and we'll figure it out! But it's definitely not your Bible! It's called rational faith, not blind faith as some preach you must have to be accepted by God. So, I stand on my presupposition (ultimate authority of the Bible) and I briefly step into the opposing worldview to show that, under scrutiny, it breaks down into absurdity. It is in this that we find the proof of God as it rests in the impossibility of the contrary. But, you must start with God. Dr. Lisle coined this approach the answer, don't answer strategy. It stems from Proverbs 26: 4&5. It's interesting to note that Jesus used this very same strategy when He was confronted with criticism. Quick example (sorry if you aren't interested in this): Then Jesus went over to their synagogue, where he noticed a man with a deformed hand. The Pharisees asked Jesus, “Does the law permit a person to work by healing on the Sabbath?” (They were hoping he would say yes, so they could bring charges against him.) And he answered, “If you had a sheep that fell into a well on the Sabbath, wouldn’t you work to pull it out? Of course you would. And how much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Yes, the law permits a person to do good on the Sabbath.” Matthew 12:9‭-‬12 Notice how they accuse Jesus here, then He simply steps into their worldview to show them how nonsensical they were being? It's fascinating to me. This was all kind of a long winded side note to say, yes I realize all worldviews are circular, including the Christian worldview. It's inevitable. I'll work on answering your objections as my time comes available. Take care.

Thank you! I'm so very blessed that my measly attempt to put into words the true Glory of God in all things has inspired others. When we stand on the Ultimate authority of the Bible and put all other assumptions to the test, they reduce to nonsense. Some characters get great joy out of doing what you saw in this thread. The story keeps changing, then the accusations start when each new story is trumped by God's foundation. It almost always goes the same way so it's important to know when to stop. I think they'd go on forever if you let it! I always pray over my posts to be sure that I'm following His lead. But remember, the Lord says that accusations are blessings (Matthew 5:11). ?

Yes they certainly can, Vince. If they are astute they will see that you haven't addressed the problem, only confirmed it. The problem is not the description of the immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities which govern all possible conceptual relationships...known as the laws of logic. The problem is WHY they exist in the first place. The unbeliever, while they can describe them as you pointed out, cannot ACCOUNT for their existence or their justification for assuming them to be true. Christians can account for them . I don't need a description of them, anyone can provide that. I want to know WHY they are there, and how the unbeliever can account for them. But you know this. ? How did that which is particular and contingent give rise to that which is universal and necessary?

No amount of proof will make someone believe. Believing in God is a choice everyone must make. You either do or you don't. What does the Word say about this proof equals belief idea? Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. Matthew 28:16‭-‬17 Some, standing in the presence of the resurrected Yeshua, doubted. I wasn't even going to address this, but I grew increasingly concerned about the doubt you seem so joyful in promoting.

Here are a couple of each. This is by no means an exhaustive list. Laws of logic Numbers 23:19 Colossians 2:3 John 14:6 2 Timothy 2:13 Uniformity in nature Genesis 8:22 Malachi 3:6 Absolute morality Matthew 5:48 Luke 18:19 Of course I do. This isn't my first rodeo, Vince. I hope you can hang with me on this one. Unlike your desire to continue asserting that unbelievers have a foundation for assuming past experience can predict the future. For the last time, it's called the inductive principle as posited by Hume. No one has been able to sufficiently explain WHY you can or even should appeal to past experiences to assume the future, except Christians. If you somehow think you've accomplished this, you will literally be famous. No kidding. I've broken the internal critique of Solipsism into 2 sections. Part 1. Solipsism - Exposing the unfounded knowledge claim First we need to understand that the issue of whether knowledge is possible is intimately linked to the issue of how knowledge is possible. In the Christian worldview, knowledge is revealed by God through various means. To the "how", knowledge is possible by revelation from an omniscient God. Now, the solipsist assumes that only he exists for certain. But why does he even believe that? Maybe it is because he has a sensation of "thinking." He would assume this thinking is his own. Unfortunately, this begs the question, because in supposing that he is the one doing the thinking the Solipsist has already pressuposed his existence, which is the very thing he is supposed to be proving. He can't really know using his own system that he even exists. This is where we hit part 2. Exposing the skeptic. Logically, if the Solipsist can't know he exists, it reduces to skepticism that we can't know anything at all. If he can't know he exists, what could he know? It becomes very easy at this point. Once the skeptic asserts that we can't know anything, I'm going to ask a very simple question. Do you know that? Of course, he must answer no since a yes answer would be self-refuting. But when he says, no he has conceded defeat – he admits that his position cannot be rationally defended. He doesn’t really know anything by his worldview. In so doing he has abdicated his seat at the epistemological debate. There is no point in listening to someone who, by his own admission, knows nothing. Again, apart from Christianity, we could know nothing at all. Proverbs 1:7.

I've made a claim and you are unable to argue against it. If you could you would. You attempted to appeal to experience and it didn't hold. This is what happens when you don't have a foundation upon which your presuppositional assumptions rest. You know this and now here we are. I've seen this many times before... I know what comes next. In an attempt to avoid that, let me make my claim again so it's loud and clear and there is no question to what I am saying here. When you argue against the ultimate authority of the Bible, on any level, you undermine the preconditions of intelligibility and destroy logic, uniformity in nature and absolute morality. In that, we must internally critique the opposing worldview and therein you will find the proof of God as it rests in the impossibility of the contrary. The Bible absolutely tells us to refute blatant contradictions. Like the unbelievers who live in contradiction to their worldview by assuming you can predict the future by appealing to experience. holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. Titus 1:9 The Bible makes it clear we are either for Him or against Him. If you are against Him, you will be refuted and exposed. Of course. The Bible alone accounts for the preconditions of intelligibility. Laws of logic, uniformity in nature and absolute morality. To refute this, another worldview would need to be able to do this. Fear of the Lord is the foundation of true knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline. Proverbs 1:7 Without God, you could know nothing.

Every world view I've encountered crumbles under an internal critique. You make it sound like there are so many viable options out there. The vast majority are nothing more than arbitrary claims and there is zero substantiation in that. I stand on the Word of Yahweh as His is the only foundation capable of supporting it's own weight. If Christianity is true, it must, therefore, be the ONLY one that is true. For the Lord is God, and he created the heavens and earth and put everything in place. He made the world to be lived in, not to be a place of empty chaos. “I am the Lord ,” he says, “and there is no other. I publicly proclaim bold promises. I do not whisper obscurities in some dark corner. I would not have told the people of Israel to seek me if I could not be found. I, the Lord , speak only what is true and declare only what is right. Isaiah 45:18‭-‬19 For anyone who thinks there is no proof of God, you've never read His Word on the matter and you sow doubt. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Romans 1:20‭-‬21 If you think you have a worldview that stands up to the scrutiny, bring it.

As I said, please submit your assertion for peer review. This is the exact problem that Hume put forth with the induction principle. Literally, the exact problem. But you know this.

Because this remains true with every worldview that isn't Christian.

Yes. Proof of God rests in the impossibility of the contrary. The very point of my thread. Welcome in.

Experience only proves past futures, it can never prove the actual future. This is begging the question because the premise is assuming the future can be predicted. Without uniformity of nature, you cannot do this. Without God, there is no foundation for uniformity in nature. This is literally an example used in Wikipedia's page for "circular reasoning." While you say that there is no good reason to assume it will change, for an unbeliever there is no good reason to assume it won't. With respect to that comment, pay close attention to the quote by Russell at the end of the wiki quote! He was not religious, by the way. However, per David Hume's problem of induction, science cannot be proven inductively by empirical evidence, and thus science cannot be proven scientifically. An appeal to a principle of the uniformity of nature would be required to deductively necessitate the continued accuracy of predictions based on laws that have only succeeded in generalizing past observations. But as Bertrand Russell observed, "The method of 'postulating' what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil".[7] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning You see, even those who aren't religious agree with what I'm saying. Inductive Reasoning (appealing to past experience) requires an appeal to uniformity in nature for which the unbeliever has no foundation for. There is no foundation for WHY there is uniformity in nature. We can look at all the evidence in the world, but you can't explain WHY it will be the same tomorrow without assuming that tomorrow will be like the past. This is a fundamental problem. I covered this in detail in my post on page one called "Uniformity in Nature." If you somehow think you've solved Humes inductive problem with an appeal to "evidence"... I'd suggest you submit it for peer review because you'll be famous for solving it so conclusively. Please see the writing I added to my original response to you. Here it is again for your convenience. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/ There are, he says, two possible types of arguments, “demonstrative” and “probable”, but neither will serve. A demonstrative argument produces the wrong kind of conclusion, and a probable argument would be circular. Therefore, for Hume, the problem remains of how to explain why we form any conclusions that go beyond the past instances of which we have had experience (T. 1.3.6.10). Hume stresses that he is not disputing that we do draw such inferences. The challenge, as he sees it, is to understand the “foundation” of the inference—the “logic” or “process of argument” that it is based upon (E. 4.2.21). Hume couldn't account for the why because he didn't have a Christian worldview. I applaud Hume for at least being intellectually honest in his pursuit for truth.

I'll ignore your other two quotes as they have nothing to do with the topic at hand. But this one does. ? An unbeliever has no grounds for relying on past experiences as a predictor for future experiences. Therefore, the attempt to do so relies upon the preconditions of intelligibility. This example would be uniformity in nature. Let's assume for a moment that God doesn't exist. An appeal to experience is simply begging the question for an unbeliever. In doing so, you must assume the very thing you are trying to prove. You assume that the future will be like the past, but there is no basis for this without God. I wrote it out in the very post you quoted. This is what it looks like and it is the very definition of begging the question. In the past, the future was like the past, therefore the future will be like the past. Therefore is the dividing line for the assumption. Again, in doing this you are assuming the very thing you are trying to prove. We can do all kinds of silly things with this very assumption you are arguing exists. For example, I can assume I will live forever because I have never died in the past. If I wanted to be philosophically vicious, I would take this a step further and point out that even the assumption that our memories are reliable has no basis for an unbeliever. How could you appeal to a past that you can't even be certain you remember correctly? Or that it even happened? I've said it before and I'll say it again. Without God you cannot know anything. Unbelievers arguments always fall into philosophical nonsense. It is clear from the onset that they don't live their lives consistent with their worldview. They regularly stand on the Christian worldview while they deny it even exists. Edit to add: this is also called the problem of induction. David Hume and Bertrand Russell worked extensively on this subject. If anyone is interested, here is a pretty good writing on the subject. Yet many have regarded it as one of the most profound philosophical challenges imaginable since it seems to call into question the justification of one of the most fundamental ways in which we form knowledge. Bertrand Russell, for example, expressed the view that if Hume’s problem cannot be solved, “there is no intellectual difference between sanity and insanity” (Russell 1946: 699). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

Quoting this only because you hit the nail on head here. It sucks, but the reality is that most people sitting in those church pews never open their Bibles to read those Words for themselves... Much less meditate on them. How many even know how to meditate on the Word? How many even know that you CAN meditate on the Word? How would they even know they are being lead astray, then? They simply go to church, listen to their pastor and go home believing they are a Christian. Like I said, it sucks that this is the reality. It's the very definition of a lukewarm Christian and I was one for the majority of my life. I like the term, "head Christian.". I knew about Jesus, in my head, but because I never read His Word and filled my heart with it, I never changed. I built my Christian understanding off of cherry picked verses. For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear. They will reject the truth and chase after myths. 2 Timothy 4:3-‬4 I'm always concerned by brothers and sisters who seem more concerned with sowing doubt than truth. Debating useless topics and what I find most comical with characters like that, when you don't give them what they want, the goal post starts to move as they search for the right topic to goad you into confrontation. You'll notice, I only had one actual objection to the information I posted about and I was happy to get it and I was happy to spend quality time responding to it. Anyway... Your replies are always welcome, friend! Take care.

Love it! Here it is also in Jeremiah, foreshadowing the coming of Jesus and the new covenant! “But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel after those days,” says the Lord . “I will put my instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. And they will not need to teach their neighbors, nor will they need to teach their relatives, saying, ‘You should know the Lord .’ For everyone, from the least to the greatest, will know me already,” says the Lord . “And I will forgive their wickedness, and I will never again remember their sins.” Jeremiah 31:33‭-‬34

I think you've derailed my thread enough, Thomas. I knew there would be opposition to my thread. Truth tends to bring that out. I just had no idea this would be the best opposition there is. Derailing attempts to discuss abritray claims of you shouldn't say this, or you should do that will not be responded to going forward. You know what my thread is about. If you have a comment or refutation to the preconditions of intelligibility, bring it. Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to air their own opinions. Proverbs 18:2 Don't be that guy. I pray it's not your intent. But if it is, just know that confrontation for confrontations sake is a deadly trap that leads to unnecessary anger in your heart. A lust for confrontation is not healthy. I've been there and I know where it leads. Let's move past this and be men of God together, praising the name of our Lord and Savior, Yeshua. Amen. Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. John 14:6

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.

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.

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