tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post2675628994323895810..comments2023-10-18T00:59:40.216-07:00Comments on Christian Skepticism - a reasonable faith...: ABC Face Off - Proving GododdXianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15427095709766850092noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-56511555610869870132007-05-14T12:36:00.000-07:002007-05-14T12:36:00.000-07:00I have used both presuppositional and evidential a...I have used both presuppositional and evidential apologetics, but each must be used in the proper setting, and the limits of evidential apologetics must be acknowledged. Yes, in a universe designed by the very God who authored the Scriptures, we should see some evidence of that fact. The problem is twofold...<BR/><BR/>1.) Evidence can change.<BR/>2.) Evidence is not proof.<BR/><BR/>So when Kirk Cameron started off by suggesting that <I>"the existence of God can be proven 100% absolutely, without the use of faith”</I>, he was easy pickings from there on out.<BR/><BR/>The best approach is to acknowledge that belief in God is based on faith alone. Many evangelicals have an issue with this, because they have bought into the secular humanistic notion that faith must be divorced from reality, devoid of any logic or reason, and opposed to science and rational thinking. This is why they need the evidential approach, in order to help "build their faith". This is a false view of faith, and it must be pointed out that atheism is every bit as much of a faith-based worldview as Christianity. From there on out, we can put the atheist on the defensive somewhat. Clearly, this is where Ray and Kirk dropped the ball.Puritan Ladhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-69626228861844141522007-05-14T11:30:00.000-07:002007-05-14T11:30:00.000-07:00I read somewhere else that an observer complained ...I read somewhere else that an observer complained about the fact that the approach taken by the Christians in this debate was criticized. The basis is the difference between presuppositional and evidential apologetics. In general, I have seen evangelists go the evidential route.<BR/><BR/>However, as PL notes here, and as most Christian philosophers state, the difference between the atheist and the Christian is not the evidence. This is easy to demonstrate by asking an atheist what evidence he would consider as valid for the existence of God. The stock answer is that such a person requires a personal appearance from God.<BR/><BR/>Of course, this leads to numerous other arguments, such as why the atheist discounts personal experience from others, or the historical record that shows a personal appearance from God. In reality, the appeal for a personal experience is as a result of the inductive way of thinking. Which is useless to determine absolute truth. <BR/><BR/>In the debate on ABC, we saw a perfect example of that. Both parties argued inductively, and neither made an overwhelming case. Frankly, it is pretty much impossible to make an overwhelming case by inductive reasoning in the case of God's existence.<BR/><BR/>Unless the debate is centered around epistomology to start with, which leads to deductive reasoning, there will only ever be quasi-ad-hominem arguments (my evidence trumps your evidence). Once a deductive framework is established, the epistomology and ontology of the atheist can be dissected.<BR/><BR/>Well-meaning evangelists don't want to offend their opponents by attacking their basic principles, but in the process fall into the trap of fallacious reasoning.Augusthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12811077365729979841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-90792891720229876382007-05-12T18:49:00.000-07:002007-05-12T18:49:00.000-07:00I would also like to add that, if the Christian Go...I would also like to add that, if the Christian God were merely the projection of western culture, I wouls expect that all westerners would be Christians, and no easterners. Since this is obviously not true, we need another explanation, like what Jonathan Edwards refers to as <A HREF="http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/edwards_light.html" REL="nofollow">A Devine and Supernatural Light</A>Puritan Ladhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-68589766493319754552007-05-12T18:33:00.000-07:002007-05-12T18:33:00.000-07:00I was going to write a different piece, but I’ll i...I was going to write a different piece, but I’ll include my observations here, as it has been difficult to organize anything from the disjointed nature of the RR Squad arguments.<BR/><BR/>1.) I respect the stand that Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron took, but we all agree that we would prefer someone with more experience to participate in a televised debate of this type. In fairness, I would suggest that most atheists would rather see someone other than the “Rational Response Squad” as well.<BR/><BR/>2.) There were two telling moments in the debate that put Ray and Kirk on the defensive and kept them there. The first is when Cameron starts off by stating that “the existence of God can be proven 100% absolutely, without the use of faith”. Obviously, this is not possible, and this unleashed the attack dogs of the rational response squad. For the rest of the debate, The Christians were trying to defend their worldview while the atheists got a free pass. The second is when Brian defined atheism as a “lack of belief in God”, and went unchallenged. Atheism is not a “lack of belief in God”. This is agnosticism. Atheism is a belief in a “lack of God”. Let’s face it; no one would participate in a “Blasphemy Challenge” based solely on a “lack of belief”. Brian’s successful attempt to redefine atheism enabled the Rational Responders to play a little game of “philosophical dodge ball”. By defining his worldview as a “lack of belief”, Brian never had to defend it. All things being even, the Rational Responders should have answered the equally difficult question, “Can you scientifically prove that God doesn’t exist?”<BR/><BR/>3.) It is difficult to gather anything of substance from Kelly’s beginning rant, in which she compared belief in God to belief in Zeus, Thor, and “the flying spaghetti monster”. (An apologist with a good scientific background could have returned the insult by comparing the belief in an eternal universe with the man in the moon and abiogenesis with Frankenstein’s monster, but I’ll digress for now.) <BR/><BR/>4.) Kelly defines “science” as “the testing of explanations of the natural world. These explanations”, she says, “are observable.” As a result, she claims that Intelligent Design is not scientific, since it cannot be observed. (Too bad she doesn’t hold abiogenesis to the same standard). She touts the virtues of her definition of science by claiming that “Science is changeable, dogmatic belief isn’t.” Therefore, she concludes that “God replaces science with magic.” We’ll see just how consistent their arguments later.<BR/><BR/>5.) Kelly passage a moral judgment on God by explaining that Hitler would be allowed into heaven because he was a Catholic, whereas the Jews he killed would go to Hell because they weren’t Christians. She insists that Hitler was a Christian, adding “I don’t care what anybody says”. The fact was the Adolph Hiter was a socialistic atheist, in his own words. (See <A HREF="http://www.answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html" REL="nofollow">Was Hitler a Christian?</A>). Granted, it is understandable that atheists would want to remove such a blight from their camp and put him in ours, but we don’t want him. He can stay right where he is, right along side of other well known atheists like Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, and the like. <BR/><BR/>Besides, she never establishes the moral grounds on which she will judge God, which brings us to…<BR/><BR/>6.) Kelly’s claim that “Morality and conscience and morality are the result of thousands of generation of parents passing them on to their children.” She than makes the ridiculous claim that the morals that we have been taught (excluding religion, of course), coming from human neurons thousands of generations ago, “are necessary for society to function and for successful gene proliferation.” Say What? Can she back this up with observable evidence? Where is the “observable science” she appeals to? Why is it that humans are the only animals that need morality? Doesn’t this cut against the very grain of evolution? Survival of the fittest? If what Kelly claims is true, then how can gene proliferation be successful in other creatures that have no moral codes? Kelly then makes the assertion that the “real insult” of belief in God is that “Morality is obsolete”. Go figure.<BR/><BR/>7.) The Rational Responders have obviously been reading too many pop-atheistic apologetics. Brian claimed that there are “literally thousands” of transitional forms in the fossil record. When asked to provide one, he suggested Australopithecus afarensis. Not so… (See <A HREF="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/104/16/6568" REL="nofollow">http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/104/16/6568</A>).<BR/><BR/>8.) Both Brian and Kelly suggested that the universe and matter are eternal. “Components of our universe have always existed.” This had to be as embarrassing for intelligent atheists as Cameron’s opening statement was for Christians. While the idea of a steady state universe is philosophically acceptable to (and I would even say demanded by) atheists in the mold of Immanuel Kant, and the oscillating universe is promoted by Eastern Religions such as Buddhism, but are scientific falsehoods. The universe is not eternal. The 1992 Cosmic Background Explorer settled that issue. (Remember Kelly, science is “the testing of observable explanations of the natural world”. The universe came from nothing, leaving you with lots a splainin’ to do.)<BR/><BR/>9.) Brian suggests that there is overwhelming evidence that the universe is not intelligently designed. He points to his own nipples and the unused legs of a snake to show perceived flaws in the design of our universe, but in doing so, he unwittingly acknowledges the very design that he sees as flawed. After all, nipples and legs are designed for a purpose, and Brian must conclude so before he can account for these perceived design flaws.<BR/><BR/>In all, this was not one of the better debates. Kirk and Ray definitely came off as more likable people, and the RR Squad (particularly Kelly) were condescending and insulting. However, I would have to give the edge in the debate to the RR Squad, proving that they were better debaters, but not much else. Kirk and Ray were all defense and no offense. The RR Squad never once had to defend their worldview. I’m not sure that anyone’s mind will be changed by either party after watching this debate.Puritan Ladhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38434833.post-50094162292164915042007-05-12T07:48:00.000-07:002007-05-12T07:48:00.000-07:00Good points sword guy. It appeared the show was e...Good points sword guy. It appeared the show was edited and we did not see the entire back and forth exchanges. I think at the point when the atheists asked who created God was a great opportunity to have pointed out that either inert matter or an intelligent being (God) must have the power of being in an of itself. One of these choices must be self-existent and not be able to not be, because if there were ever a time or point when nothing existed, then nothing would exist today. Therefore, the two basic choices are matter or an intelligent entity (God). Granted the concept of it being God is hard for the human mind to grasp, but it is pure nonsense to assert that matter/energy is the answer. <BR/><BR/>If some atheist wants to explain how something comes from nothing absent an outside cause or that matter has always existed, then I am all ears. To deny God is not enough. They must prove one of these two positions since their atheistic faith is based on one of them being true.jazzycathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16720471765591930568noreply@blogger.com