The
main thing I have noticed about this conversation so far is that Dan has a
tendency to redefine words to suit his arguments. So far he insist that my
faith cannot mean what I say it means. He quotes a few verses out of context
such as Matthew 17:20 which has to do with spiritual warfare more than anything
else. He then posted a link to some crazy people who refused to take their kid
to the hospital because they had faith that god would heal them. Nowhere in
scripture are we told to behave in such a way and a clear case could be made to
disprove such a theology. I have not tried to connect Dan’s atheism to that of
Hitler or Stalin’s beliefs because I can recognize the difference. For a civil
conversation to happen you can’t lump all believers in with Westborough
Baptist.
If
you notice the verse in Matthew that he quoted, he attempted to define what
this meant by saying, “It is clearly the
depth of conviction that is paramount, not the quantity or quality of the
evidence.” Lets not forget that Jesus said that right after he freed a boy
from demon possession that caused him to try and kill himself regularly. For
the disciples that would carry some evidential weight don’t you think? I think
the point has been well substantiated that a Christian need not have blind
faith. However, if Dan needs more proof I simply direct him to Romans 10:17 where Paul writes, “Consequently, faith
comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about
Christ.” So we see that the faith that it
takes to come to God is given to us by Gods revelation through scripture and
the person of Christ. This is not the blind faith that Dan just insists I have
because he has worked so hard on that part of his argument. If part of his
refusal to accept the Christian God is because he thinks he demands blind faith
and our beliefs leave no room for doubt, I’m glad to dispel those rumors and
bring him one step closer to conversion.
On
the issue of morality Dan continues to be his own source for what is moral. He
stated, “The same is true of many moral
calculations. A decrease of well-being in one area may result in greater
well-being somewhere else.” Notice the word “calculation” is used. To make
a calculation in math is to follow a set system in order to reach an answer.
The same could be said of morality. We all recognize that there are certain
moral guidelines that need to be followed. Where does Dan’s set system come
from? It simply comes from Dan.
He brings up the issue in Numbers again where
he thinks God is acting cruelly. This is one of those verses that often gets
used for its shock value. We see in the Bible a God that often times judges
with nature. For example, He decided it would be just and good to send a flood
that killed a lot more than just a small army. Sometimes however, he uses
people to carry out that judgment as in the verses mentioned. God can bring upon
justice any time he wants and still remain good. A God could not be good unless
he eventually upheld a standard of justice. It is simply a reflection of His
mercy that allows people who breathe hate against him to continue enjoying the
sunshine and cool ocean breeze. If God is good then he must judge not according
to Dan’s standard but by his own holiness and he is free to enact that judgment
anytime he wants. This rubs harshly against all those who want to define
morality for themselves. Dan then
injects his own opinions into the verse where he states, “carting away traumatized young girls as sex slaves.” This was not
the case at all. Those girls who had not participated in the sexual idolatry
that so offended God were spared. Instead of leaving these women in the desert
to die they were integrated into the society as an act of mercy. I haven’t
tried to appeal to emotions in order to make my case but we can see Dan
inserting things into the text that are not there instead of just dealing with
what the text says.
We
see statistically that couples that wait to have sex before they are married
have a much lower rate of divorce. So I could claim that it benefits the
well-being of the family structure not to have sex outside of marriage. Of
course my grounding goes beyond just what I think, but is rooted in the
character and commands of God as an absolute moral standard. I would be
interested to see that if I could give Dan enough evidence that abstinence
until marriage increases well-being if he would become an advocate for such a
cause? When we remove an absolute moral law what we tend to find is each person
creates the moral code they are already living by.
I
think Dan is getting closer and closer to being a theist. He has accepted a
transcendental cause for transcendental laws. He even has redefined atheism to
mean, “atheism is the rejection of the
positive claim that a theistic God exists, and not the claim that a God cannot
(or does not) exist” This
slight of hand is becoming more common because atheist have come to see that
the very stance that there is no God is self refuting. But the traditional
understanding of what atheism is can be found in Webster’s dictionary as “one who believes that there is no deity.” The term atheism
originated from the Greek (atheos), meaning "without god(s)”
Dan
then goes on to say that “I’m completely
open to accepting the proposition that God exists, provided that a coherent
definition for God is provided and the evidence is compelling.” I was
curious why he wanted a definition so bad when he knew I was a bible believing
Christian. Even among different denominations the character attributes of God
are fairly consistent. Interestingly enough the God of the Bible doesn’t spend
much of his time trying to prove that he exist. When Moses asks for his name
God simply says, “I Am” Such an answer would not meet Dan’s standards but if
his standard were ultimate as to whether or not such revelations validate a god
then Dan himself would be a god. God doesn’t need us to stamp his papers in
approval. This is the very position of a presuppositionalist. Evidence is given
in a courtroom to a judge and jury but we are neither when it comes to God, he
is the “I AM.” We have to presuppose God in order for our logic and reason to
mean anything at all.
When
it comes to discussions of this nature Dan and I are both limited. If we are to
know if a God exist then he must start the conversation. I imagine God
explaining his omnipotence to us is like me trying to teach my dog how to
program the remote. We reach the limit of our intellect and we reach it really
quick. Perhaps this is why I find it strange when a finite being doesn’t fully
understand omnipotence. I will freely say I don’t fully understand it because I,
just like Dan, only know what God has told us about himself. Saying that God cannot
sin does nothing to limit his power just as saying that God cannot make himself
not exist would limit him. Limits have to do with obstacles that keep you from
completing what you want to do. I didn’t find anything in his rebuttal on the
perfect will of God valid. He kept using the example of his dog not being able
to open the door, but I could train my dog to open the door.
I
asked in my opening statement why would proving anything actually prove
something. Perhaps that needs more explanation since Dan wants proof. Unless
there is a being that sustains the governing laws of the universe proving
something would never actually prove anything since the same experiment could
be conducted with different answers every time. Science presupposes universal
constants in order for it to work at all. There must be an immaterial,
universal, unchanging mind behind such laws.
But why does it need to have a mind? Dan thinks when that when we apply
the character traits of the Christian God to what we actually know to be true
then that God fails.
Well
lets see if that is true.
Logic
is a process of the mind, which means it is conceptual by nature. If was the
product of a human mind then it would vary from person to person. So unchanging
universal laws must have a perfect unchanging mind behind them. A person's
thoughts are the product of that person's mind. A mind that is irrational will produce
irrational thoughts. A mind that is
rational will produce rational thoughts.
So we are looking for a God whose
nature is such that whatever he created would reflect who He was. This is why
we live in a world that has universal laws of logic and reason. I used the word
“produce” and Dan has an objection to it, but by no means do I suggest that
logic or any other law come before God; they simply reflect who He is. They do
not exist outside of him, they are apart of him. We are told this very thing in
the gospel of John when Jesus is referred to as the “logos” which means the
foundation of order and knowledge.
This being must also be uncreated and
eternal or we are left with an infinite regress. This is also a claim made by
the Christian God. The fine-tuning of the universe shows intentionality, this
would justify the belief that God is personal and interacts with his creation.
Moral laws are also universal and a reflection of his character. Dan has agreed
that we should care about the well-being of others. Why? He didn’t know. I
would suggest it is because we are all created in his image and every person
has worth and value. I don’t simply know right from wrong because God told me,
he wrote it upon our hearts that we should love and be in community with one
another. This means that the God that does exist would need to need to be a
good God. If God is good then He has perfect goodness and worthy of worship.
Again, this all lines up with the God of the Bible and Him alone.
Dan finished his response by stating
why logic is his axiom, “The answer is because it’s all we have. You’ve accused me of
giving up the tools to go beyond logic. But to go beyond, you must give up the
only tool that allows us to make sense of the world” Yes, logic is what you have because it is what has been
given to you. You don’t have to give up logic to look for a source of logic. If
poor logic can exist in the human mind then it can follow that the reason for
universal logic is a perfect immaterial universal mind. We use the term mind
here not to refer to a physical brain but to an intelligent being that exists
beyond the physical world.
Why
do we have any of these laws? I think it’s a fair question to ask. Dan says we
just do. Scripture tells us that we have these because they are a reflection of
God, so much so that they alone are enough evidence for those who are seeking. Romans
1:19 says, “since what may be
known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation
of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have
been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are
without excuse.”
I
wanted to wait until Dan had an opportunity to make his beliefs known before I
brought in one of the big difficulties of his worldview. Dan has stated in previous
debates that because his knowledge comes from his senses and that his senses
could be wrong it’s totally possible that Dan is wrong about everything. If I
say I know the sun is shinning outside but I could be wrong, I don’t actually
know if the sun is shining. To say he could be wrong is to give up knowledge itself.
He insists that logic is the only axiom, but he could be wrong so he doesn’t
actually know that at all.
However,
we know that logic exists and we can be certain of it. My worldview includes a
God who can reveal things to us so that we can know them for certain. We all
live in this certainty daily. The Christian God is the necessary starting point
for this entire discussion. The Christian God is defined as follows, the all
knowing, all loving, all powerful, unchanging and perfectly just creator of the
universe who has revealed himself in time, thought, and history and in the
person of the God/Man Jesus Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment