Jump to content


Photo

Atheists & Agnostics: Why Don't You Believe The Bible?


  • Please log in to reply
332 replies to this topic

#61 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 21 June 2012 - 05:02 AM

But God does not expect blind faith. Jesus Himself said that if He bore witness of Himself, don't believe Him (John 5:31)

Yeah, we should believe John's witness instead. And John is the one telling us he said that in the first place. Okay.

How or where did you get the notion that you can't know truth?

Thank you for asking, I appreciate the change of pace. As for the answer, I don't know, I've had that notion for as long as I can remember. I know I'd been imagining brain-in-a-vat scenarios long before I found out it's an actual thing in philosophy. Maybe it's because I've always consumed fantasy and science-fiction, and a supernatural or high-tech power fooling people's senses and making everything they believe be false is a very common trope. It's also possible I just thought of it on my own, I thought about that kind of thing a lot as a child and it's not a hard idea to come up with. I find it much more strange that somebody would never have thought of these things until they went to college.

Now if you tell me that you got into the Matrix on your own, then I have to believe you. But the good news is that I'm here to convince you that you can cut yourself loose.

As far as I know the brain-in-a-vat/Matrix/being-fooled-by-an-omnipotent-being scenarios set the standard for what “unfalsifiable” means, so I'd love it if you could disprove them.

Any attempt by a relativist to deny the law of non-contradiction is self-destructive. It's like arguing, “I think I can't think.” “I know I can't know.” “I'm certain I can't be certain.” In each case, the relativist is doing what he claims he can't do.

This might be relevant if I had at any point denied the law of non-contradiction. I don't; I have repeatedly stated I think the law of non-contradiction is how the world works, i.e. is true. I have also repeatedly stated, including at length in the paragraph you just quoted above, that I am not saying “I know I can't know” or “I'm certain I can't be certain”. I have explicitly said quite a lot of times now that I am not, in fact, certain that I can't be certain. Why do you keep arguing against a position I do not hold ?

The atheistic relativist has the same problem when he denies that God exists. To argue against God's existence, the atheist must use God-given attributes to argue against the God he denies

That assumes those attributes are God-given, i.e. you're assuming God's existence to demonstrate it's illogical to deny God's existence. Seeing as atheists do not assume God's existence and do not believe those attributes are God-given there is no logical problem from their point of view.

In his worldview only matter exists; yet he uses the immaterial laws of logic and thought to argue that only matter exists. If his worldview were true – that only matter exists – he could not reason or use laws of logic.

Again you are assuming your own conclusion: if logic and thought are immaterial then it's illogical to say they're not. But if they're not immaterial then there's nothing illogical there.
You could just as well say that dualists cannot reason or use laws of logic because they're using thoughts and logic derived from brain processes to argue thoughts and logic don't derive from brain processes. If you can understand what's wrong with that argument you'll understand what's wrong with yours.

Besides computers use laws of logic and they can “reason” in the sense of deriving logical conclusions from premises or integrating information to condition future behavior. Which part of the computer is immaterial exactly ?

Also, I remember someone here making an argument for the laws of logic's existence that didn't require those laws to be immaterial or God-given at all, what was it again :
a. Without the laws of logic, we could not make an argument.
b. We can make an argument.
c. Therefore there must be laws of logic.

Now I think that's a terrible argument because making a circular argument is exactly the same as making an assumption, so it's more honest to just make the assumption directly. But you said that argument was reasonable and valid so I trust it will convince you.

An honest atheist will not argue that morality is absolute. And most I have encountered accept a relativistic morality or “what's right for you is not right for me”. But there is a problem with this. Just as two contradictory statements can't both be true and false at the same time and in the same way, murder of the innocent (say) can't be both moral and immoral at the same time.

Again you are assuming your own conclusion. If there is a single absolute morality then something can't be moral and immoral at the same time. If there isn't, then saying “this is moral according to morality1” and “this is immoral according to morality2” are not contradictory, and “this is moral” can be true or false but not in the same way : it's true if “moral” is taken in the sense of “morality1” and “immoral” when it's taken in the sense of “morality2”.

By the way, you realize that some statements are neither true or false, right ? “This sentence is false” is the canonical example.

Atheists claim to be “scientific” while we Christians rely on blind faith in a God. But to do scientific experiments, the atheist must trust that there is uniformity of nature, that the physical laws will not change and will remain law-like. The atheist believes that the laws will remain the same tomorrow as they have today, but he has no rational reason to believe so. His belief, within his worldview, is an arbitrary one

“But what if it were not arbitrary? There are some situations where the conclusion of an argument must be assumed at the outset.”

If the universe is the result of an unguided “big bang” and humans are an accident of chemicals, why should there be any laws of physics or laws of logic at all?

That question is irrelevant to whether we can do scientific experiments or not. All that's necessary for scientific experiments to work is that the universe does behave in a regular manner. And as long as we observe that it does it's a perfectly reasonable assumption to make.

Most atheist argue they can know the physical laws will not change in the future because they have remained law-like in the past. But this is circular reasoning or begging the question

“Having said all that, there are special cases where circular reasoning is unavoidable and not fallacious.”

In the materialistic worldview of the atheist, abstracts such as liberty, justice, dignity or insulting one's sensitivities can't really exist. Matter or energy will not give you these immaterial things.

Sure it will. Humans are made of matter and energy and abstracts such as liberty, justice, dignity or insulting one's sensitivities emerge straightforwardly from the interactions between humans and their brain patterns, therefore matter and energy do give you those things.
Did you notice the bit where I assumed my own conclusion there ? That's what you've been doing this whole post.

I pray that I gave you an uncomfortable intellectual kidney stone that will not pass until you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior

Sorry, as I told you previous times when you used made those arguments I don't find circular reasoning convincing at all.

#62 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 21 June 2012 - 05:02 AM

Yeah, we should believe John's witness instead. And John is the one telling us Jesus said that in the first place. Okay.


Thank you for asking, I appreciate the change of pace. As for the answer, I don't know, I've had that notion for as long as I can remember. I know I'd been imagining brain-in-a-vat scenarios long before I found out it's an actual thing in philosophy. Maybe it's because I've always consumed fantasy and science-fiction, and a supernatural or high-tech power fooling people's senses and making everything they believe be false is a very common trope. It's also possible I just thought of it on my own, I thought about that kind of thing a lot as a child and it's not a hard idea to come up with. I find it much more strange that somebody would never have thought of these things until they went to college.


As far as I know the brain-in-a-vat/Matrix/being-fooled-by-an-omnipotent-being scenarios set the standard for what “unfalsifiable” means, so I'd love it if you could disprove them.


This might be relevant if I had at any point denied the law of non-contradiction. I don't; I have repeatedly stated I think the law of non-contradiction is how the world works, i.e. is true. I have also repeatedly stated, including at length in the paragraph you just quoted above, that I am not saying “I know I can't know” or “I'm certain I can't be certain”. I have explicitly said quite a lot of times now that I am not, in fact, certain that I can't be certain. Why do you keep arguing against a position I do not hold ?


That assumes those attributes are God-given, i.e. you're assuming God's existence to demonstrate it's illogical to deny God's existence. Seeing as atheists do not assume God's existence and do not believe those attributes are God-given there is no logical problem from their point of view.


Again you are assuming your own conclusion: if logic and thought are immaterial then it's illogical to say they're not. But if they're not immaterial then there's nothing illogical there.
You could just as well say that dualists cannot reason or use laws of logic because they're using thoughts and logic derived from brain processes to argue thoughts and logic don't derive from brain processes. If you can understand what's wrong with that argument you'll understand what's wrong with yours.

Besides computers use laws of logic and they can “reason” in the sense of deriving logical conclusions from premises or integrating information to condition future behavior. Which part of the computer is immaterial exactly ?

Also, I remember someone here making an argument for the laws of logic's existence that didn't require those laws to be immaterial or God-given at all, what was it again :
a. Without the laws of logic, we could not make an argument.
b. We can make an argument.
c. Therefore there must be laws of logic.

Now I think that's a terrible argument because making a circular argument is exactly the same as making an assumption, so it's more honest to just make the assumption directly. But you said that argument was reasonable and valid so I trust it will convince you.


Again you are assuming your own conclusion. If there is a single absolute morality then something can't be moral and immoral at the same time. If there isn't, then saying “this is moral according to morality1” and “this is immoral according to morality2” are not contradictory, and “this is moral” can be true or false but not in the same way : it's true if “moral” is taken in the sense of “morality1” and “immoral” when it's taken in the sense of “morality2”.

By the way, you realize that some statements are neither true or false, right ? “This sentence is false” is the canonical example.


“But what if it were not arbitrary? There are some situations where the conclusion of an argument must be assumed at the outset.”


That question is irrelevant to whether we can do scientific experiments or not. All that's necessary for scientific experiments to work is that the universe does behave in a regular manner. And as long as we observe that it does it's a perfectly reasonable assumption to make.


“Having said all that, there are special cases where circular reasoning is unavoidable and not fallacious.”


Sure it will. Humans are made of matter and energy and abstracts such as liberty, justice, dignity or insulting one's sensitivities emerge straightforwardly from the interactions between humans and their brain patterns, therefore matter and energy do give you those things.
Did you notice the bit where I assumed my own conclusion there ? That's what you've been doing this whole post.


Sorry, as I told you previous times when you used made those arguments I don't find circular reasoning convincing at all.



#63 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 22 June 2012 - 02:02 PM

But to do scientific experiments, the atheist must trust that there is uniformity of nature, that the physical laws will not change and will remain law-like.



We don't "trust" that they won't change. We expect to be able to observe the effects of any changes.

#64 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:13 PM

Yeah, we should believe John's witness instead. And John is the one telling us he said that in the first place. Okay.


Aleyn, sorry I took so long to reply. Got busy with family matters. For some reason, I'm having trouble getting this to post? I going to post in in two parts.


Part I

Oh no, Aleyn, I have no expectations of you believing John. Jesus said that if you do not believe Moses and the prophets, you will not even believe One who rises from the dead (Luke 16:31).

Aleyn, you admitted in an earlier post that your study and knowledge of the Bible is lacking. I submit that at this point in your existence, you don’t really know enough to accept or reject the Bible.

You have been consistently arguing that you’re not sure truth exists, that you’re not sure you know it, and that you can’t be certain. And I can’t get you to admit that the laws of logic and truth are absolute by definition. Yet, notice you seem to know with certainty that the testimony of John is not true. I must ask you how John can be lying if there is no truth and you can’t know it? Surely you must be able to see the ultimate result of atheism which is total irrationality. And I must point out to you, a person who can’t know that anything is absolutely true, that you seem to know with certainty that it is true that John’s testimony is untrue. Why? Your out-of-hand rejection can’t be based on knowledge. Read what you’ve posted.

Originally in your Post 30 when asked if you had actually read the Bible: “Bits and pieces over the years, mostly Genesis because that's usually where I start when I decide to read the Bible. I also know about a lot of its content that I haven't read directly, mostly thanks to a religious grandmother and a few years of Sunday school, and I have come across quite a few sections of it quoted in various places.


I asked you if you if you wanted me to give you a big picture outline to help you understand the Bible better. In your Post 33, you answered:

“Well... Your first response was already extremely long, and most of it I can't say much about because it relies on assumptions I just don't share. The same would probably be true of this big picture outline so I feel it would be wasting both your time and mine to ask you to give it. Were you to write something on the subject I would read with interest but you wouldn't get much in the way of response.”

In your Post 33, you made it clear that you were not really interested to know if the Bible is true:

“But that's the thing though, even if I didn't reject the evidence you just presented (and I don't actually. I DON’T KNOW ENOUGH ON THE SUBJECT TO SUMMARILY REJECT WHAT YOU SAID [my emphasis] without looking it up, and I DON’T CARE ENOUGH TO LOOK IT UP RIGHT NOW [my emphasis]), you have given me no reason to become a Christian. You have demonstrated that the Bible is more historically accurate than the Book of Mormon is, and that the New Testament echoes the Old Testament.”

And then you concluded with: “You haven't demonstrated that the Bible is true, let alone that it is the ultimate truth.”

If, by your own admission, you are pretty much ignorant of the Bible and have read very little of it, and you don’t really care to know it, can you at least admit that you are dismissing it as being true out of hand with no rational reason to do so?


Thank you for asking, I appreciate the change of pace. As for the answer, I don't know, I've had that notion for as long as I can remember. I know I'd been imagining brain-in-a-vat scenarios long before I found out it's an actual thing in philosophy. Maybe it's because I've always consumed fantasy and science-fiction, and a supernatural or high-tech power fooling people's senses and making everything they believe be false is a very common trope. It's also possible I just thought of it on my own, I thought about that kind of thing a lot as a child and it's not a hard idea to come up with. I find it much more strange that somebody would never have thought of these things until they went to college.


I’m 77 now and I can’t ever remember anyone positing that there is no such thing as truth. Oh I suppose that wacked-out philosophers like Hume was proclaiming this in Europe, but this kind of nonsense never reached the two-room school house I sat in. And I’m more of a Texas horse-sense person.


As far as I know the brain-in-a-vat/Matrix/being-fooled-by-an-omnipotent-being scenarios set the standard for what “unfalsifiable” means, so I'd love it if you could disprove them.


To disprove them, wouldn’t absolute truth have to exist? And wouldn’t you have to be able to know truth? And wouldn’t you have to be certain that it’s true? By your own admission, this is not possible. I’ve asked you if the laws of logic are absolute or conventional? Can you please answer my question?


This might be relevant if I had at any point denied the law of non-contradiction. I don't; I have repeatedly stated I think the law of non-contradiction is how the world works, i.e. is true. I have also repeatedly stated, including at length in the paragraph you just quoted above, that I am not saying “I know I can't know” or“I'm certain I can't be certain”. I have explicitly said quite a lot of times now that I am not, in fact, certain that I can't be certain. Why do you keep arguing against a position I do not hold?


Which of the three laws of logic describe, let’s say, the rotation of the planets as described by Kepler? The law of non-contradiction? The law of identity? The law of the excluded middle?

So, now you are “not certain that you can’t be certain.” That’s equivalent to positing that “I don’t know nothin’.” If you don’t know nothing, then you must know something. (When I typed “don’t know nothing, my computer (which was programmed by an intelligent mind) knew better and underlined “nothing” to alert me that two negatives make a positive.) If you are not certain that you are uncertain, then you must be certain.


That assumes those attributes are God-given, i.e. you're assuming God's existence to demonstrate it's illogical to deny God's existence. Seeing as atheists do not assume God's existence and do not believe those attributes are God-given there is no logical problem from their point of view.


And you are assuming He does not exist. What it comes down to is which worldview better justified these attributes, the atheist’s or the Chistian’s. Aleyn, I will keep repeating this until you grasp it. Yes, the Christian assumes that rational reasoning, laws of logic, morality, uniformity of nature are God-given. But the Christian’s assumptions (or presuppositions) are not ARBITRARY. He has a rational reason to believe his presuppositions are true. And when the Christian looks at the reality he encounters, what he has presupposed comports with that reality.

The atheist reasons, uses laws of logic, trusts that there is uniformity in nature, and knows in his heart that there is a moral right and wrong, but he has no rational reason to know that these things can exist in his atheistic materialist worldview where only matter exists and there is no Creator God. On the one hand he asserts that only matter exists, and then he uses the immaterial laws of logic to argue that only matter exists. You did the same thing when you refuse to admit that the laws of logic are absolute and then you had to use the absolutism of these laws to argue your position. If the atheist stayed in his worldview, he could really know nothing.

Again you are assuming your own conclusion: if logic and thought are immaterial then it's illogical to say they're not. But if they're not immaterial then there's nothing illogical there.
You could just as well say that dualists cannot reason or use laws of logic because they're using thoughts and logic derived from brain processes to argue thoughts and logic don't derive from brain processes. If you can understand what's wrong with that argument you'll understand what's wrong with yours.


Aleyn, when did I ever assert that the laws of logic “are not immaterial.” I think you got that from yourself when you assert that they describe how the universe works—WHICH THEY DON’T! If the universe did not exist, the laws of logic would still exist. You can’t weigh a law of logic, or smell one, or eat one, or hear one make a noise, or measure one, or taste one. God allows the dualist the atheist, the Mormon, the Muslin the agnostic, and the tree-hugger from Colorado (little humor) to use His laws of logic and reason rationally (or irrationally). But only the Christian has a rational reason to justify why he can use these God-given attributes.

Besides computers use laws of logic and they can “reason” in the sense of deriving logical conclusions from premises or integrating information to condition future behavior. Which part of the computer is immaterial exactly ?


There is a huge difference between a computer and you. The computer does not KNOW it is using laws of logic and reaching conclusions from premises or integrating information to condition future behavior. A computer does not reason. A computer will never sit around and ponder its existence or complain that it is too hot—because it does not know it’s hot. An adding machine can tell you that 2 plus 2 equals four. But it will never know if it is true that 2 plus 2 equals four. Now we can know it’s true that 2 plus 2 equals 4 not because we have ever seen it to be otherwise; we can simply know it’s so. This is what reasoning and knowing truth is. It’s not contingent on our experiences or even whether the material world exists.

Also realize that that while information can be stored in a computer, information is not physical. It can only come from an intelligent mind. Any information that has ever been traced back always results in an intelligent source. Atheists can’t account for information coming from reasonless matter.

Also, I remember someone here making an argument for the laws of logic's existence that didn't require those laws to be immaterial or God-given at all, what was it again :
a. Without the laws of logic, we could not make an argument.
b. We can make an argument.
c. Therefore there must be laws of logic.

Now I think that's a terrible argument because making a circular argument is exactly the same as making an assumption, so it's more honest to just make the assumption directly. But you said that argument was reasonable and valid so I trust it will convince you.


Here you posted that you think it is a terrible argument. Notice you are using laws of logic—which thus far I have not been able to get you to admit are absolute. But here you are trying to convince me that your argument is absolutely true using the laws of logic that you argue are not absolute but describe the physical universe.

I used this argument (modus tollens) to show you that to reach an Ultimate Standard, some circular reasoning is inevitable—unavoidable even. You do this yourself all the time. You have a set of presuppositions you use to interpret reality. Yours is an atheistic materialistic one; mine a Christian creationist’s. You PRESUPPOSE your senses and memory are reliable before you use them. You presuppose that the physical laws are law-like and will not arbitrarily change a minute from now. You presuppose that you can reason rationally. You presuppose that it is wrong to violently rape and murder a woman. But the killer question is WHY do you presuppose these things? These presuppositions can’t be justified or accounted for IF YOU STAYED IN YOUR WORLDVIEW. To rail against any moral injustice, say, you must borrow from the Christian worldview.

More to come, TeeJay


#65 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:17 PM

Aleyn, Part II

Again you are assuming your own conclusion. If there is a single absolute morality then something can't be moral and immoral at the same time. If there isn't, then saying “this is moral according to morality1” and “this is immoral according to morality2”are not contradictory, and “this is moral” can be true or false but not in the same way : it's true if “moral” is taken in the sense of “morality1” and“immoral” when it's taken in the sense of “morality2”.

I’m arguing that a behavior can’t be both moral and immoral at the same time in same way in the Christian worldview where God (who is in authority above man) defines what is right and what is wrong. The relativist has no Standard for declaring that murder of the innocent moral or immoral. If he deemed that one or the other was moral or immoral, another relativist could deem just the opposite, and neither could disagree with the other.

Is morality subjective or objective for you? For the atheist, it can’t be objective. Such is life in the relativist’s worldview.

By the way, you realize that some statements are neither true or false, right ? “This sentence is false” is the canonical example.


Aleyn, I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Can you clarify?

“But what if it were not arbitrary? There are some situations where the conclusion of an argument must be assumed at the outset.”


The atheist can’t deny a Creator God and posit that only matter exists and then assume and use the immaterial laws of logic to argue that only matter exists. This is like denying the laws of logic are absolute and then using them to argue that your argument is absolute.

That question is irrelevant to whether we can do scientific experiments or not. All that's necessary for scientific experiments to work is that the universe does behave in a regular manner. And as long as we observe that it does it's a perfectly reasonable assumption to make.


The question is very relevant. And of course the atheist assumes that the laws will remain uniform. But when he does so, he is leaving his worldview and is being inconsistent with his set of presupposition. He has no rational reason to assume uniformity other than past experience. Why will the law of gravity not fail tomorrow? Because it did not fail yesterday. But the atheist is basically saying that the laws will remain constant because in the past the future was like the past. He is assuming that which he is trying to prove. Other than past experience, the atheist can’t reasonably assume that tomorrow will be like today. The best example I can think of is suppose I posted, “I am never going to die.” And you would rightly ask, “TeeJay, why in the world do you think you’re never going to die?” And I would reply, “Well I haven’t died in the past, and this is a perfectly reasonable to assume that I will never die.

The Christian’s presuppositions for believing in uniformity are not arbitrary. The Biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe because God made all things (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe. The Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Heb. 1:3I). We can trust that God is consistent (1 Sam. 15:29; Num. 23:19). God tells us that there are certain things we can count on (Gen. 8:22; Jer. 33:20-21).

“Having said all that, there are special cases where circular reasoning is unavoidable and not fallacious.”


Aleyn, I’m glad you are tossing my own arguments back at me. It shows you’re thinking a bit more. But recall what I argued further:

“However, the argument is not arbitrary. We have a good reason for assuming laws of logic because without them we could not prove anything. Anyone doubting the existence of laws of logic would have to use them to make his argument—self defeating. If you have a good reason to believe something, then your belief is not arbitrary. For example, the argument that truth does not exist and you can’t know it is self-defeating. The argument that the laws of logic are not absolute is self-defeating. Why? Because the statement that the laws of logic are not absolute is an absolute statement itself.

Sure it will. Humans are made of matter and energy and abstracts such as liberty, justice, dignity or insulting one's sensitivities emerge straightforwardly from the interactions between humans and their brain patterns, therefore matter and energy do give you those things.


But what you must ask yourself (and answer): Are humans ONLY made of matter or energy or is there something more? If humans were made of only matter and energy, then they would be just that—matter and energy and nothing more. Matter can’t give you what it does not have to give. These abstracts exist BEFORE humans interact.

Did you notice the bit where I assumed my own conclusion there ? That's what you've been doing this whole post.


But you arbitrarily assumed your own conclusion. In the atheistic materialist worldview, you have no rational reason to assume this conclusion. As to your accusation that I have arbitrarily assumed anything, please present it. I will show you that in my worldview, my assumptions are not arbitrary.

Sorry, as I told you previous times when you used made those arguments I don't find circular reasoning convincing at all.


For you to find circular reasoning unconvincing, you first have to admit that laws of logic are absolute. Thus far, I have been unable to get you to admit they are. Such is life in the world of the relativist.


TeeJay


#66 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:32 PM


[quote] name='ringo' timestamp='1340398949' post='84470']
[/color][/size][/font]

We don't "trust" that they won't change. We expect to be able to observe the effects of any changes.
[/quote]

Ringo, sorry to ignore you but Aleyn and I have to answer some rather long posts. And Aleyn, I'm sure is a faster typist than I.

The argument I'm making is that absent God, WHY should there be uniformity in nature? And absent God, Who has created all that exists and has imposed His will and laws on the universe, why should the atheist expect that the law of gravity, say, operate tomorrow as it has today? If the atheist could not "trust" that the laws would remain constant, no scientific experimentation would be possible. If the laws changed arbitrarily, then an experiment done today would have different results for one done tomorrow. Now the atheist believes that these laws will not change arbitrarily, but he has no rational reason to believe and know this within his worldview. His belief is an arbitrary one. If you don't have a rational reason to believe something, you can't know it's true. I can post that I believe I am going to win the Texas lottery this year. Even if I do indeed win it, I did not know I was going to win it. My belief that I was going to win was arbitrary. So the question for you is WHY should the atheist believe that the laws will not change arbitrarily?

TeeJay

#67 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 23 June 2012 - 08:15 AM

Teejay, as far as I can tell every one of your responses to me either YET AGAIN attributed to me positions I have repeatedly and explicitly explained I do not hold, or completely missed the points I was making. I'll stop wasting both of our times on this now.

#68 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 23 June 2012 - 08:57 AM

... why should the atheist expect that the law of gravity, say, operate tomorrow as it has today?


As I said, we don't "expect" it to be the same; we observe that it is the same. If we observed that it wasn't the same, we'd have to work from that.

If the atheist could not "trust" that the laws would remain constant, no scientific experimentation would be possible. If the laws changed arbitrarily, then an experiment done today would have different results for one done tomorrow.


On the contrary, scientific experiments are, by definition, connected to reality. If the law of gravity changed from one day to the next, it would be difficult to build a reliable aircraft but the changes would be easily detectable.

If you don't have a rational reason to believe something, you can't know it's true.


That's what I've been trying to tell you. The existence of a nickel in my pocket may be absolutely true or false but your knowledge of it is not. If it's true, you don't know it's true; if it's false, you don't know it's false. The existence of truth and the knowledge of truth are separate.

Now, maybe you can suggest an experiment that we can do to find out whether there's a nickel in my pocket.

#69 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 23 June 2012 - 01:28 PM

[quote] name='ringo' timestamp='1340467037' post='84476']
As I said, we don't "expect" it to be the same; we observe that it is the same. If we observed that it wasn't the same, we'd have to work from that.[/quote]

Am I to believe that when you Canadians get out of bed in the morning, you don't expect gravity to work? And you only believe it will work after you "observe" it to work? An excellent way to test this is step of the roof or a ten-story building. I just asked my wife (French Canadian) if she did not beleive gravity would work until she observed it to work? She asked me where I got such a notion? I had to tell her it came from a Canadian.

[quote]On the contrary, scientific experiments are, by definition, connected to reality. If the law of gravity changed from one day to the next, it would be difficult to build a reliable aircraft but the changes would be easily detectable.[/quote]

Ringo, If the laws changed from day to day, no scientific experiment would be possible. The results of any experiment would differ from day to day, minute to minute, second to second. But scientists, atheists as well as Christians, assume that the laws will not change tomorrow. The question I want you to answer is what justification does an atheist have for trusting that there will be uniformity in nature?



[quote]That's what I've been trying to tell you. The existence of a nickel in my pocket may be absolutely true or false but your knowledge of it is not. If it's true, you don't know it's true; if it's false, you don't know it's false. The existence of truth and the knowledge of truth are separate.[/quote]

Recall that I asked you if the laws of logic were absolute or conventional? If they are conventional, then what you posted here may be true in Canada and not true here in Texas. "What's true for you is not true for me." Now please don't give me the drilling holes metaphor. I have a Delta drill-press in my shop that drills holes quite nicely, thank you. So again, are the lawsof logic absolute?

[quote]Now, maybe you can suggest an experiment that we can do to find out whether there's a nickel in my pocket.
[/quote]

First we have to find out if you exist. Ringo, do you exist, and do you know you exist?

TeeJay

#70 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 23 June 2012 - 01:39 PM

[quote] name='aelyn' timestamp='1340464514' post='84475']
Teejay, as far as I can tell every one of your responses to me either YET AGAIN attributed to me positions I have repeatedly and explicitly explained I do not hold, or completely missed the points I was making. I'll stop wasting both of our times on this now.
[/quote]

Aleyn, That's fine. We can end this now. But in parting, I pray that you will eventually admit to yourself, that if you fail to accept that the laws of logic are absolute, then you can't argue that what I post is false and what you post is true. I pray that I have made your worldview uncomfortable to live in and that you will be forced to step into a worldview that is rational and can be defended with truth--truth that at present you are not certain you can know.

God bless, TeeJay

#71 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 23 June 2012 - 01:49 PM

Am I to believe that when you Canadians get out of bed in the morning, you don't expect gravity to work?


We don't anticipate changes. If I get out of bed and float up to the ceiling, I have observed a change.

The question I want you to answer is what justification does an atheist have for trusting that there will be uniformity in nature?


The only justification anybody has is past observation. If we had observed major changes in the law of gravity in the past, I'd be justified in taking precautions against them in the present, such as holding on to something so I don't suddenly float away into space. Our lives are made much more convenient by the fact that we haven't observed any such fluctuations.

If they are conventional, then what you posted here may be true in Canada and not true here in Texas.


As I said earlier, what is true is not the same as what we know to be true. Logic only works on what we know to be true. It only drills holes in something tangible, not in thin air.

So again, are the lawsof logic absolute?


Of course not. You can't determine logically whether or not there's a nickel in my pocket. You have no knowledge of it to work from and logic without knowledge is worthless.

So, have you thought of an eperiment that we can do to gain some knowledge about the contents of my pocket?

#72 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 25 June 2012 - 05:33 AM

[quote] name='ringo' timestamp='1340484591' post='84481']
We don't anticipate changes. If I get out of bed and float up to the ceiling, I have observed a change.



The only justification anybody has is past observation. If we had observed major changes in the law of gravity in the past, I'd be justified in taking precautions against them in the present, such as holding on to something so I don't suddenly float away into space. Our lives are made much more convenient by the fact that we haven't observed any such fluctuations.[/quote]

Ringo, It is not true what you post, that "the only justification anybody has is past observation." You need to read my Post 65 to Aleyn. I give the Christian justification for uniformity of nature. You, on the other hand, have no justification other than past observation or experience. Using your reasoning, I can claim that I will never die. And if you ask why I think I will never die, I can simply reply, "Well, I haven't died in the past." You believe the future will be like the past because in the past, the future was like the past. You are assuming that which you are trying to prove.



[quote]As I said earlier, what is true is not the same as what we know to be true. Logic only works on what we know to be true. It only drills holes in something tangible, not in thin air.[/quote]

Is your reasoning here absolutely true?



[quote]Of course not. You can't determine logically whether or not there's a nickel in my pocket. You have no knowledge of it to work from and logic without knowledge is worthless.[/quote]

If the laws of logic are not absolute, then I must ignore what you posted above.

[quote]So, have you thought of an eperiment that we can do to gain some knowledge about the contents of my pocket?
[/quote]

Until you admit that the laws of logic are absolute, that's not possible. If the law of noncontradiction is not absolute, then it could be true that you have ten cents in your pocket and not true that you have ten cents in your pocket at the same time in the same sense. Such is life in the relativist's worldview.

TeeJay

#73 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 25 June 2012 - 07:40 AM

If the laws of logic are not absolute, then I must ignore what you posted above.

Until you admit that the laws of logic are absolute, that's not possible. If the law of noncontradiction is not absolute, then it could be true that you have ten cents in your pocket and not true that you have ten cents in your pocket at the same time in the same sense. Such is life in the relativist's worldview.

TeeJay

Forgive me for jumping in on your conversation. I just had a comment on the idea that logic is absolute and god is a explanation for that absolute.

If god weren't real, would logic still function as an absolute? In other words, if there was no god would A=A at all times?
If you say yes, then god is irrelevant with respect to logic. If logic works with or without god, you can't claim god is needed for logic to work.
If you say no, then logic is conditional since there's a condition where it doesn't work (god's non-existence). You also open up the door to contradictory ideas, such as god or logic both not existing and existing at the same time.

I'm perfectly willing to state that logic is absolute, but I disagree that god has anything to do with logic. Ultimately, logic such as the law of identity is a description of a tautology. It's true because it's true not because something is forcing it to be true. A object is what it is, because if it were something different it would be that instead.

#74 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 25 June 2012 - 09:49 AM

You, on the other hand, have no justification other than past observation or experience. Using your reasoning, I can claim that I will never die.


On the contrary, you have observed other living things die. All of your experience tells you that everybody dies. You're perfectly justified in thinking that you too will die. It would be downright silly to claim that you need some kind of external justification.

If the laws of logic are not absolute, then I must ignore what you posted above.


I've given you an example where absolute logic doesn't work. It cannot answer the question, "Is there a nickel in my pocket?" because neither Yes nor No is a valid answer. The only honest answer you can give is, "I don't know." The law of non-contradiction doesn't apply because you don't have two contradictory possibilities. It is not a universal law.

It may or may not be true that there's a nickel in my pocket but what's important is that you don't know whether it's true. Your "absolute logic" doesn't work on a simple practical problem. It may be a fun parlour game but it has no application to reality. To operate on real things, logic needs real, verifiable premises. What "is" doesn't matter. What you know matters.

I'm trying to explain to you what it means to be agnostic but you seem to be saying that I have to stop being agnostic before you can talk to me. I was hoping you'd do better.

#75 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 25 June 2012 - 05:54 PM

On the contrary, you have observed other living things die. All of your experience tells you that everybody dies. You're perfectly justified in thinking that you too will die. It would be downright silly to claim that you need some kind of external justification.


Ringo,


Absent the existence of a creator God, do you have any rational reason to believe that the physical laws will not change tomorrow? The atheist/materialist can’t use past experience as a rational reason. Here’s why: First, I will grant that in the past there has been uniformity. But how does the atheist know that the future will reflect the past (uniformity)? Whenever the atheist uses past experience as a basis for what is likely to happen in the future, he is assuming uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past. Thus, he’s trying to justify uniformity by simply assuming uniformity—a vicious circular argument. Since your argument fails logically, I will be glad to entertain other arguments you may have to justify uniformity of nature in the future. When the atheist rules out a Creator God, he has much difficulty justifying what he encounters in reality in his worldview. Reality does not comport with the atheist worldview there God does not exist and only matter exists.

I've given you an example where absolute logic doesn't work. It cannot answer the question, "Is there a nickel in my pocket?" because neither Yes nor No is a valid answer. The only honest answer you can give is, "I don't know." The law of non-contradiction doesn't apply because you don't have two contradictory possibilities. It is not a universal law.


Is what you posted here true? Notice that you had to use the law of non-contradiction to argue that it is not absolute. When you argue that absolute logic does not work, you are using the absoluteness of the law of non-contradiction to argue that the law of non-contradiction “does not work, does not apply and that it is not a universal law.” All attempts to deny or refute the laws of logic fail. Logic is based on four undeniable laws. And there is no getting behind these laws to explain them. In order to reject any of these statements, one must assume the absoluteness of the very principle he seeks to deny. But if you must assume that something is true to argue it is false, you haven’t got a very good basis on which to stand.


It may or may not be true that there's a nickel in my pocket but what's important is that you don't know whether it's true. Your "absolute logic" doesn't work on a simple practical problem. It may be a fun parlour game but it has no application to reality. To operate on real things, logic needs real, verifiable premises. What "is" doesn't matter. What you know matters.


Do you know that what you posted is true? If you don’t believe in the laws of logic, please quit using them to argue.

I'm trying to explain to you what it means to be agnostic but you seem to be saying that I have to stop being agnostic before you can talk to me. I was hoping you'd do better.


I’m talking to you now and I have answered all your posts. No? I even overlooked your non-existence dilemma. I will continue to show you that your worldview is irrational, arbitrary, and inconsistent. If your worldview (set of presuppositions) are illogical and not based in truth, then you can really know nothing.

Laws of logic are not parlor games. Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning. It is the study of the principles of thought or reason, that is not just mere thought or thinking per se, but of the type of thought or thinking we term reasoning. The distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning is the central problem with which logic deals. Dr. Norman Geisler tells us that “Logic is the study of right reason or valid inferences and the attending fallacies, formal and informal.” Logic is undeniable, unavoidable, self-evident, and self-explanatory. One cannot not use logic. One has to use it to refute it. All claims against logic are self-contradictory, self-defeating, self-refuting, self-stultifing

Ringo, here’s where we are at. You can self-delude yourself into denying laws of logic are absolute. But if you do, you have to use laws of logic to make your case. And you can’t know that anything is true or false. Absent the absoluteness of the law of non-contradiction, it could be true that God exists and also true that God does not exist at the same time in the same sense—which is absurd. There is a way to get off the horns of your dilemma. I, as a Christian creationist, hereby grant you permission to step into my worldview and test it to see if it is rational, logical, and non-arbitrary.

Te
eJay


#76 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 25 June 2012 - 11:47 PM

Out of curiosity Teejay, is everything you post true ? If not, how do you tell what's true from what isn't ? If you know something is true, does that mean it is true ?

To take an example, you said this :

In the Book of Job, God chastises Job: "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades [seven stars] or loose the belt of Orion?" (Job 38:31). Now God said this to Job long before it could be verified by our modern astronomers.

Is that true ?

#77 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 26 June 2012 - 09:23 AM

But how does the atheist know that the future will reflect the past (uniformity)?


I keep trying to tell you: we don't make any such assumption. If we observe changes in the way the universe operates, we will have to make corresponding appropriate changes in our behaviour.

Notice that you had to use the law of non-contradiction to argue that it is not absolute.


The law of non-contradiction works just fine when there is an absolute Yes or No to choose from and no other possible answers. When Yes or No are not valid answers at all, like in the example I gave, non-contradiction cannot be applied. Thus, non-contradiction is not a universal law. The laws may be absolute where they apply but they don't apply universally.

When you argue that absolute logic does not work...


When I argue that absolute logic doesn't work, I give a concrete example where it doesn't work. If you could answer my question, "Is there a nickel in my pocket?" you could prove me wrong easily. Instead of doing that, you're trying to use the abstract to disprove the concrete. As I've said from the beginning, you're doing it backwards. You're using a theory to try to disprove observations.

I even overlooked your non-existence dilemma.


That's the problem. You overlook what you can't answer.

If your worldview (set of presuppositions) are illogical and not based in truth, then you can really know nothing.


That's what I'm trying to tell you: You can really know nothing with absolute certainty. That's what agnostic means. We're back to square one and you haven't the slightest idea where I'm coming from.

You don't know whether or not there's a nickel in my pocket. There are ways for you to learn something about it but logic alone won't do it.

I, as a Christian creationist, hereby grant you permission to step into my worldview and test it to see if it is rational, logical, and non-arbitrary.


I've been in your worldvew. It failed to tell me whether or not there was a nickel in your pocket.

Now you step into mine. Do you want to find out whether there's a nickel or not?

#78 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:11 PM

Aleyn, and Ringo, I'm up to my neck with something here on the ranch. I will get back to you in a few days. Aleyn, I typed that evidential post from memory. It's been years since I read up on the revelation in Job. I may be wrong. But if I am wrong, Aleyn will KNOW one truth--TeeJay is not infallible.

TeeJay

#79 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 27 June 2012 - 03:22 AM

Aleyn, and Ringo, I'm up to my neck with something here on the ranch. I will get back to you in a few days. Aleyn, I typed that evidential post from memory. It's been years since I read up on the revelation in Job. I may be wrong. But if I am wrong, Aleyn will KNOW one truth--TeeJay is not infallible.

TeeJay

Take your time TeeJay, I hope everything goes fine ! Working on a ranch sounds exciting ^^
For when you get back : does TeeJay KNOW TeeJay is not infallible ? How does TeeJay tell the things he KNOWS from the things he thinks he knows, but seeing as he isn't infallible he might be wrong ?

#80 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 27 June 2012 - 06:23 PM

Posted 26 June 2012 - 01:47 AM

Out of curiosity Teejay, is everything you post true ? If not, how do you tell what's true from what isn't ? If you know something is true, does that mean it is true ?

To take an example, you said this :


Quote

In the Book of Job, God chastises Job: "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades [seven stars] or loose the belt of Orion?" (Job 38:31). Now God said this to Job long before it could be verified by our modern astronomers.

Is that true ?


Aleyn,

Truth is absolute by definition. My knowing what is true or believing what is true does not make a matter true. Truth stands on its own.

I endeavor to be truthful with all my posts. Now if I post something that I think is true, and you subsequently post a contradictory argument that proves mine to be false, then I, as a Christian, must admit I’m wrong and you’re right. But for you to prove me wrong, you must use the absoluteness of the laws of logic. There is no getting around this simple truth. We both should KNOW that it’s true that we cannot not use logic and function in the real world. If the law of non-contradiction were not absolute, then it could be true that God does exist and also true that God does not exist at the same time in the same sense. And I think even an atheist would be forced to admit that this would be absurd.

It must be true that God either exists OR He does not exist. There I go again! I said “it must be true.” The law of the excluded middle forces us to face truth. If the law of the excluded middle did not exist, you and I could not even affirm that it is either God or not God that we are speaking about. If we used the term God, we could be referring to both God and not God at the same time in the same sense. Our discussion would meaningless.

And let us not forget the issue of morality. If I purposely posted an argument that I know to be untrue, then I am not only illogical, but I am also guilty of lying. The atheist, in addition to denying the absoluteness of logic, must also deny the absoluteness of morality. Absent God, the atheist must live in a subjective, relativistic worldview. He has no choice.

The atheist worldview is dysfunctional. The atheist can function only if he borrows from the certainty that is only possible with God. Jesus Christ said, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Mat. 19:26). Here Jesus was not claiming that square circles could be drawn, nor defending irrationality, but He was showing that all things knowable or doable (especially concerning salvation) are only possible because God exists. The Christian worldview, on the other hand, is functional. The Christian recognizes that logic and reason do exist, that they are absolute, and that they are possible because they flow from the mind of God. Logic exists and can only exist as a consequence of the rational thoughts in the mind of God.

The transcendental proof for the existence of God is because of the impossibility of the alternative. The atheist must assume his worldview is false before he makes his argument. For example, the atheist espouses that only matter and energy exist, but then must use non-matter (laws of logic) to argue that only matter and energy exist. He denies truth, but must assume his position is true to argue that the theist’s is not true. He denies that the laws of logic are absolute but must use the absoluteness of the laws of logic to argue that they are not absolute. All relativist's arguments self-destruct and there is no exception to this simple truth.

After I present my argument for Orion and the Pleiades, I pray that you correct me on some point with truth. If this happens, you will know that it is true that TeeJay posted a falsehood. But to do this, you will have to use the absolute laws of logic which you deny is absolute. You will have to assume that you have the truth to show that I don’t have the truth—and you may not have the truth as well. But if you argue that truth can’t be known, then how could you claim that my position is not true?

What will keep me from accepting your argument, even if what you post is true? It will not be my reasoning that will keep me from being humble. It will be my heart (not the organ that pumps blood). No one likes to be wrong, and one does not love a person who proves him wrong. The Christian and the atheist both have pride that must be overcome, and God will not violate your free will to accept or reject Him. C. S. Lewis wrote that “you know you are guilty of the sin of Pride if you think you are not guilty of the sin of Pride [paraphrased].”

If I said that truth does not exist, you could simply ask me, “TeeJay, is that true?” If my statement that “truth does not exist” is true, then I my argument self-destructs. If it is not true, then it collapses as well. So we can know at least one simple truth: A relativistic argument is self-defeating.

How do I know truth? More important, “What is truth?” Some have argued that it is a statement of reality—which is fine for me. Another view is that truth is found in correspondence. Truth is what correspondence to its object (referent), whether this object is abstract or concrete. As applied to the physical world, truth is the way things really are or “telling it like it is.” (There are cows in my pasture.) There can be truth about the abstract as well. We can have truth in mathematics (which is non-physical). There can be truth about ideas, such as ideas in one’s mind. There can be truth in laws of logic especially. For example, laws of logic are absolute and to argue against this simple truth, one must assume they are absolute to argue that they are not absolute. Falsehoods do not correspond to their referents (objects). A falsehood does not “tell it like it is.” A falsehood is a misrepresentation of the way things are. Statements can be false even if the speaker intended them to be true. In this case, the speaker is not guilty of lying but is mistaken as to what’s true. He becomes guilty after he is given the truth but refuses to humble himself and accept what is true. Jesus said, concerning the cities in which He did most of His miracles, “Sodom and Gomorrah will rise in judgment against these cities, for if the miracles had been done in Sodom which were done in these cities, Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented in sackcloth and ashes [paraphrased].” Jesus told Israel, “To whom much is given, much is expected." God gave special revelation of His existence to Israel—laws, prophesies, miracles, etc. But the rest of the world is guilty before God because “what may be know of God is manifest [evident] in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made… so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:19-20). And in Rom. 1:18, Paul writes that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven… of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”

An example of the atheist suppressing the truth: The universe was EITHER always here OR it popped into existence from nothing, OR a supernatural Creator created it. (Here we go again with the laws of logic--either or.) The atheist automatically dismisses the third option out of hand. But then he must do logical gymnastics to argue against the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics: Nature can’t bring matter or energy into existence from nothing (first law); and the universe can’t work and burn forever since it would eventually expend all useable energy (second law). Something to consider:


CIRCULAR REASONING


Begging the question is when the conclusion of an argument is incorporated into one of its premises—or when the truth of a premise depends upon the conclusion. This fallacy in logic is also called Circular Reasoning. Example: “How do I know evolution is true? Because it is a fact!” This argument is asserting (A) that evolution is true on the basis of (B) that it is a fact. But (A) is merely a restatement of (B). A person arguing this way has merely assumed what he is trying to prove. And merely assuming something is no proof at all. While drinking my coffee this morning and watching the sunrise, it occurred to me that atheists (the materialistic ones for sure) are guilty of Circular Reasoning.

Let’s say we are walking on the beach and observe scratched in the sand, “Madelyn loves TeeJay.” It would never occur to anyone that there must be a naturalistic cause for this message (verses an agent cause (Madelyn)). No atheist would insert a gap and argue: “What! We must assume that Madelyndidit?” The atheist automatically assumes and knows that Madelyn, who loves TeeJay, must have scratched this in the sand and that it was not caused materialistically by waves or sand-crabs. The atheist would not give it a second thought.

However, when it comes to origins of first life or the universe, the atheist has no materialistic explanation at the ready as in our example. So instead of assuming an agent-causation (such as God), he automatically inserts a gap. And he immediately argues, “What! So Goddidit?” The theistic answer of an Agent causing the universe and first life is immediately dismissed out of hand. The atheists refuses to admit that the gap has been plugged by the theist with an adequate explanation because of his belief that since only matter exists, there has to be a materialistic explanation.

If we carefully consider this reasoning, it turns out to be circular reasoning. “There has to be a gap, because I have no materialistic explanation. There has to be a materialistic explanation because naturalism is true. But since it’s naturalism itself which is at issue in the discussion, when the atheist assumes there is a gap—because they have no materialistic explanation—they are assuming that which needs to be proved.

Recently, one of our drones crashed in Iran. The Iranians said they were going to “reverse engineer” it. I pray that before they start their reverse engineering, they will dismiss, out of hand, even the remote possibility that an aeronautical engineer designed it.

Orion and the Pleiades: “[God humbling Job] Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?” (Job 38:31).

Now since God assumed that Job knew about them, we can assume that Job probably viewed them from the desert floor where star gazing was a nightly pastime and television and Monday night football was in the far distant future. I, as a teenager, lived in the Middle East, and I spent many a night laying on the sand with a cold beer and watching the skies. There is no ambient lights from cities and the dry air does not distort the magnificence of God’s creation. I probably viewed the belt of Orion but did not know it? But while Job may have been able to view them, he certainly could not know what or modern day astrophysicists have learned that corroborates Job's special revelation from God.

It would be millennia later before modern astrophysicists would confirm this knowledge presented by this verse. The stars of the Pleiades are gravitationally bound together, and the stars of Orion’s belt are speeding away from each other. Now this was revealed in Job, the oldest Biblical book, before we had light spectrometers, radio-telescopes, or the Hubble. While the ancients could observe the heavens, they had no advanced technology to interpret starlight data. But the Bible quotes God accurately stating that the stars of the Pleiades are bound together (they are gravitationally bound). And the stars of Orion’s belt are loosed, and are moving apart and eventually would completely undo the belt from Earth’s perspective.

Isabel Lewis of the United States Naval Observatory says that astronomers have identified 250 stars of the Pleiades moving through space in the same direction. Dr. Robert J. Trumpler of the Lick Observatory has confirmed that Job 38:31 is actually a true statement. Over 25,000 individual measurements of the Pleiades stars are now available. Their study led to the important discovery that the whole cluster is moving in a southeasterly direction. Quoting Trumpler, “This leaves no doubt that the Pleiades are… a system in which the stars are bound together by a close kinship.”

God revealed to Job that He arranged an opposite scenario for Orion’s Belt. Viewed from Earth, the Belt consists of an almost perfect straight line, a row of a few second-magnitude stars about equally spaced, each star traveling in different directions at different speeds. Astronomer Garrett P. Serviss has said that “In the course of time, however, the two right-hand stars, Mintaka and Alnilam, will approach each other and form a naked-eye double; but the third, Alnitak, will drift away eastward so that the band will no longer exist.” So this verse provides evidence of the divine authorship of Scripture. But the question God posed to Job He is still to this very day asking the atheist: “Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades or loose the belt of Orion?”

In my original post, I recall inserting a "seven" after either Pleiades or Orion? As my memory serves me (and it's getting old), one of these is also referred to as the "Seven Sisters"?

TeeJay





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users