Proving God Exists: Morality

I can't decide whether I'm glad or disappointed that Eric Hovind actually hasn't written these articles I'm critiquing here. The dude's name is Joshua Joscelyn, but I'm sure Eric at least had to approve these for them to appear on the website. So I hold them both responsible for their production's absurdity. And this final article is not exempt. Shall we?

Atheism is bankrupt. The unbeliever's worldview is utterly devoid of justification. When someone takes the unbeliever's claims to the bank, the check will bounce. If anything is to be said for this illogical worldview, it could be said that the unbelievers have been clever enough to turn the tables on Christians and paint believers as the illogical ones. However, this only underscores the importance of subjecting your worldview as well as that of the unbeliever to closer scrutiny. And one of the best areas in which to do this is in the area of morality.

Utterly devoid of justification is great wording. Well, at least if you're referring to your previous inane articles where you assumed your own conclusions. I don't feel like anyone has turned any tables. Rather, claims have been held up to scrutiny and some have been shown to be... transparent.

Now, before we go any further, it must be stated that I am not claiming the atheist or unbeliever to be immoral, necessarily. This is often confused with the true intent of what I am about to say. But rather, I will demonstrate that, like logic and science, morality is merely assumed by the unbeliever, yet without a rational basis. While he may claim that morality—the concept of right and wrong—is merely the evolutionary result of self preservation, this counter claim has a few fundamental flaws. The unbeliever suggests that morality is simply a man-made construct that came about as an aid to our evolution. After all, it is simply pragmatic to avoid stealing from or killing my neighbor as this will garner favor for myself, and will thus further my survivability. This is sometimes extrapolated to also suggest that morality is what society agrees upon. But this would mean that societies like Nazi Germany were, by definition, good. It would mean that doing wrong to my neighbor when no one else can possibly find out is not wrong, but right.

Ah, I'm not necessarily immoral. Just probably, amirite? All because of this damned unbelief. God, give me faith! Oh,wait, actually that's just wishful thinking kicking in again. When people tell you to "ask God to increase your faith," that's as helpful as telling me to ask the unicorn fairy to increase my faith in leprechauns. If it helps, it's only because I wanted it to help. Otherwise, wouldn't God/unicorn fairy have increased my faith in the first place? I don't know. I honestly haven't dealt with any supernatural beings in my short stint on earth.

Anyway, yes, I do believe morality is a man-made construct. And yes, I do believe it has its basis in evolution. But please, "assumed... without a rational bias?" Just keep drinking that Kool-Aid. Yes, it does actually increase survivability if you don't go around stealing things or killing people. But you say that morality could (under some definitions) be determined by society. Well, I have to disagree. Read on:

And what is "wrong," anyway? How does one define this word? By what standard can something be right or wrong? When the unbeliever is faced with this question, he does not have a rational response. 

Morality is, at its core, based on the results of free-will decisions upon fellow humans. That is to say, something is morally "wrong" if it unjustly harms someone and "good" if it helps them in some way (which would be decided by the receiver of the action). Now if we use that basic definition of morality to analyze your scenario, the Nazis, we can see that it was not moral. Their actions benefited no one and harmed the lives of millions in unspeakable ways. The tough thing about morality is that there aren't always easy choices. Sure, some basics are easy, like "don't murder" (that never helps the victim), "don't steal" (other people have a right to their property - you wouldn't want someone taking your stuff), or "don't rape" (I don't need to explain this one). But as scenarios change and get more complex, things can get more muddled. This happens for issues like nuclear proliferation (incidentally, not a topic covered by the Bible), homosexual marriage rights, abortion, and "universal" (American) healthcare.

One side (clear-thinking people) believe that homosexual marriage should be allowed because it gives people the right to do what they want in a situation where other people will not be notably negatively affected. The other side thinks that it should continue to be outlawed because.... well, their book says so. This is an issue of morals because one side believes their position is morally correct and the other's incorrect (and vice versa). This issue does not require a Bible or any other text to tell you what to think.

Other, more complex issues would be those like nuclear proliferation. Is it moral or immoral to stockpile nuclear weapons? Should we distribute them? Should we try to remove all of them everywhere and use all of our military power to do so, voiding other countries' rights to sovereignty, trying to ensure that everyone in the world can be free from the threat of nuclear violence? People have taken stances on both sides of this issue and have made compelling arguments both ways. Christians often paint a picture of a completely black-and-white world where each action is either completely right or completely wrong. This unfortunately just isn't how the world works. Choosing the lesser of two evils is sometimes the best thing to do. But I'm digressing.

To him, if right and wrong are only based on human consensus, than morality is entirely subjective—it changes, and is not absolute. In other words, what is right to one group at one particular time can "morally" be wrong to another group at another time. Or if right and wrong are in the mind of the individual, then how can they be blamed by their actions? If evolution is the explanation, and we are only acting as our DNA dictates, then once again, there is no way we can logically be outraged when somebody's DNA causes them to kill, rape, or lie. After all, we are not outraged at the rock that falls on a car and injures the occupants. How is this any different from the purely naturalistic explanation given lamely by the unbeliever? They're only reacting to their genes, right? Evolution cannot account for morality.

No, conversely, if morality is entirely based on what God says, then it must be relative - subjective. It would be completely based on "God says so" (never a good reason to believe when the person who told you that isn't known to be trustworthy).  If God says that action X is good, then it simply is good regardless of context, motivation, or meaning. If God told you to slaughter children (and don't say it hasn't happened... repeatedly), then it is a good thing to do. An honorable one. A required one. And that's something I just can't buy. Remember the Euthyphro Dilemma? It asks the question, "Is it moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral?" Clearly, I do not believe it can be the former, for that would require countless absurdities like the one I just mentioned. If it is the latter, then God is simply a bystander at the moral carnival, watching the ferris wheel of choices spin and dictating to you when to get on and off the ride. This is especially hurtful to those believers who would like to think that God created and is in control of everything, including morality. But it's just not so.

In case it hasn't been obvious from what I've said so far, people are not outraged at rocks for falling on them (well... some are, but it's a futile thing) because rocks don't have free will. They aren't making choices. Morality requires choices. In the same way that you can't fault a person for pulling the trigger and killing a child if his hands and fingers were hooked up to a machine that controlled them against his will, you can't fault a rock for falling on a car if it had no say in the matter. If a rock did become sentient and decide to crush my muscular legs, I'd have a legitimate reason to complain.

Yet evolutionists and unbelievers, in general, behave in moral ways. They make statements like "You shouldn't teach Creationism to little kids," or "You ought not to judge other people." They bear witness to the Creator by their conscience, while making moral statements, though these statements cannot be accounted for within their worldview. The fact that unbelievers appeal to objective morality, even though they lack the standard for such, proves that they really do believe in God! Unbelievers borrow from the Christian worldview in operating within the guidelines of morality. It is the Christian worldview, because morality to a Christian is merely a reflection of God's nature. Morality to a Christian stems from an absolute standard—God and His Word. Morality is built into the hearts of every person God created, whether they follow that conscience or not. Deep down inside, even atheists know that there is an absolute moral standard—they just can't bring themselves to confess His name. In this way, morality bears witness to the Creator God, who is good and right. And that, you can take to the bank.

Yay! You finally get it! We shouldn't be teaching creationism to little kids. Because it isn't science and it isn't true. I mean, you can deny that, but reality isn't up for grabs here.

Non-Christians appeal to a non-objective but intellectually defensible morality that tries to find the best decision in the set of all possible decisions. Note that this whole while, you've used the adjective "Christian" to describe all of these things that you're trying to prove here. I could change that to "Jewish" or "Muslim" and that wouldn't change your arguments one bit. That should raise some flags for you, but that isn't even your biggest problem. You assert, again, without justification, that we have defined our ways of thinking upon your Bible without realizing or acknowledging it. You haven't backed up a whit of these assertions, and I think now that realization has been heavily poured upon your head.

So here's the "moral" of the story. Think rationally. Anticipate the consequences of your actions, especially in situations where you are aware that things can go wrong. By being conscious about the impact you have on your family, friends, and society in general, you can make the world be a happier, less crappy place. And smile about that!

:D

Proving God Exists: Science

In case any of you are wondering, I haven't abandoned my weekly dissection of Answers in Genesis's weekly newsletter. For the last two weeks they've just been... uninteresting. Which is sort of odd for a creationist organization, but I suppose even they run out of pseudoscience now and again. So today I'll be doing a review of the next sermon on the list of Eric Hovind's underwhelming "proof of the Christian God." You don't have to read the first quote, but I thought it funny.

"All rise," comes the command in the musty and dim courtroom. "This court is now in session, the Honorable Judge Science presiding in the case Skeptic vs. Bible." The visitors in the gallery return to their seats as the case begins with opening arguments from the prosecutor. Skeptic's attorney makes several remarks, pleading to Judge Science to see that the evidence shows clearly that Bible is at fault, and cannot be trusted. The jury is on the edge of their chairs, wondering how the attorney for Bible will fare against such staggering evidence. By the time the verbose attorney for Skeptic takes his seat, things look bad for Bible. According to the case made by the prosecution, Science will no doubt rule against Bible. But then something curious happens. Science stands up and walks over to the seat of Bible. Bible stands up. Science mutters sheepishly, "Forgive me, he keeps calling me 'Judge.' I must have sat in the wrong seat, Judge Bible." A collective gasp is heard around the courtroom. As Judge Bible is seated in His rightful position, He holds up the gavel and asks Science how he pleads, "Are you guilty against this court and my laws, or do you plead innocent?" The room is all ears, as the new defendant rises and smiles. "I plead 'No Contest,' your Honor. I only do as you dictate."

Eric, are you honestly asserting that the Bible is to dictate to us what is and isn't scientifically factual? Are we to believe it when it tells us that the earth is flat, there is a solid dome in the sky, that bats are birds, that a whale is a fish, that a rabbit chews the cud, or that placing sticks in front of cows will make their offspring striped? That isn't a great track record. But even if I agreed that it was, why should I take the word of an ignorant nomad who wrote that God created everything in 6 days? How would he know that? He wasn't there. It sounds to me just like any other story a religion would tell you. The bible isn't a science textbook (and some creationists would even agree with me here), so to take any kind of scientific insight from it at all is putting it in a realm it doesn't belong. But to say that the book somehow overrides what we know about this world is preposterous. I wouldn't care if the Bible or any other holy book tells me that the sun revolves around the earth or that sicknesses are caused by demons - I know better, and I won't be naively fooled by your assertions that you know better than thousands of scientists over hundreds of years.

In the realm of debate among skeptics and Christians, science is often brought up as the standard by which we judge truth. Christians often pander to this, searching for the best scientific evidence possible, making multiple pleas to science in order to gain a favorable footing in this contest. But what Christians need to understand is that this puts science in the judge's chair. If we surrender our Bible to determine what is truth, we will never win. For the Bible tells us "Thy word is truth" (Jn 17:17). We've got it all backwards if we think we can appeal to science to vindicate Scripture. Furthermore, we elevate to an improper position the minds of men if we think we can put God's Word on trial to begin with! God's Word is sovereign, and science pleads "No Contest!" Scientific evidence merely bears witness to the absolute Truth of the Bible. In fact, if we may carry our courtroom analogy one step further, when Judge Bible is enthroned, the roles of defendant and prosecutor switch places. It is the skeptic who is now in the hot seat! God's Word is the standard, the skeptic has fallen short of this standard (Rom. 3:23), and we see from the testimony of scientific evidence nothing but verification of this assertion. We see that the skeptic's worldview is all wrong, and that science has no place in the position as judge.

No, the bible isn't the standard. It hasn't been for some time. If something is true, it can be found to be true without requiring some holy book. If something is true in the natural world, it can be investigated and conclusions can be drawn from our perceptions of whatever it is we're talking about. If we can't investigate it, we can't know that any claim is true, so to take the word of the bible (aka, the word of men), we're just assuming that what they said is true. That's a foolish thing to do when it comes to issues such as science (though in this paragraph you seem to drift away from that and lean more toward spiritual issues). There is absolutely no reason to think that the bible has any kind of monopoly on truth or that it is self-proving, because it isn't. And yet you talk as though it is, something you completely failed to show in your last post (Logic) and again fail to do here.

Now let's look deeper. Let's examine the presuppositions of the skeptic or unbeliever. He attempts to disprove the Bible through many venues, one of which is science. But there is a fundamental problem with this. Science depends on the Uniformity of Nature. If the laws of nature changed randomly, there would be no way to measure or experiment accordingly. If gravity, for example, were different from one day to the next, how could science be possible? The obvious answer is that it couldn't. Yet the scientific laws of nature are uniform and unchanging, because God established them to be so. He created laws and told us that they will not pass away – we can count on them (Gen. 8:22). But the unbeliever refuses to believe in God, though he operates with the same understanding of the uniformity of nature as do believers. But why? This is inconsistent with his professed worldview, which claims that nature and her laws evolved into what they are today through an ever-changing and random process. You see, the unbeliever must borrow from the consistent worldview of the Christian in order to even do science or appeal to scientific evidence. He takes God's existence for granted while he tries to argue against Him! In this way, the skeptical or unbelieving evolutionist professes a worldview that is self-refuting.

Just as in your last post, you assume with no evidence whatsoever that certain things don't make sense if there is no god. Again I must ask, why must there be any god for nature to be uniform? Does there need to be a Flying Spaghetti Monster for pasta to be tasty?  That assertion makes as much sense as yours, and if you don't think so, you might want to reexamine your logic. You can't just say that "X requires a God" and leave it at that. You need to show it through evidence and logic - something you haven't even attempted.

You then go on to say that unbelievers opine that nature and her laws evolved through random processes. This simply is not the case. Nature itself does not evolve and laws are unchanging. Life evolves due to the set laws of nature and is not completely random. I've explained this before and I don't need to do it again. You know as well as I that you're being misleading and spreading disinformation.

Christian, when you are presented with a scientific "evidence" against the God of the Bible, remember two things: First, never put the Bible on trial or place science in the judge's seat.  The Bible is the Final Authority. It is God's Word. When you use evidence, use it to show that science agrees with the Bible. And secondly, use science to show that the unbeliever has no way to account for the uniformity of the laws of science without the Biblical God, who never contradicts Himself, and who created laws to be relied upon. Show the skeptic that if he truly believes in Evolutionism, then there is no way he could measure or test his theory at all. Because without God, there is no way we can know anything. God established the laws of nature, and if this were not true, we could not trust these laws. And if we can't trust the laws, we can't trust any of our science. But thank God we can trust the uniform laws of nature and science, because our great God established them to endure when He created the whole universe in just six days.

I was at first under the impression that you were trying to prove to non-believers that a god exists. However, through your shallow logic and assumption of the infallibility of the bible, I have to assume that you're writing to and for Christians with no intent for your message to reach unbelieving eyes. This "logic" wouldn't even have convinced me when I was a Christian, much less now as an atheist.

You've moved on to asserting that without a god we can't know anything. This makes no sense at all - what we do and don't know are based on observation and testing, not by reading books and asserting them to be true despite all evidence to the contrary. Evolution by common descent can be tested in myriad ways and has been done in uncountable ways. (Just look up Tiktaalik or Human Chromosome II, for starters.)

Occam's razor is a useful tool that I would like to briefly explain here. It says that the explanation that fits the evidence and makes the least assumptions is most likely to be correct. An analogy is: let's say that right now, I hear a noise in my closet. I go investigate and find that a box has fallen onto the floor. I can assume perhaps one of two things. Either it fell on its own or it was knocked over by a cat. I know that the law of gravity pulls things down and that I've stacked many boxes on top of one another, so it is likely that one that was at an angle finally slid off the box below it and hit the floor.

Alternatively, I could simply theorize that a cat was crawling around in my closet and knocked it over. This is akin in science to throwing away modern explanations and just saying "Goddidit." However, like the box analogy, this makes more assumptions and leaves more things unexplained than it solves. Think about the cat: how did it get into my apartment? How did I not hear it crawling around for the last few hours and where did it go? Assuming a cat is responsible raises more questions than it answers, so the better explanation in light of the circumstances is that the box simply fell on its own.

In the same way, is it more likely that the universe's laws are uniform because that's just the way it works, or is it more likely that some all-powerful god created it with a blink of his eye and left us no evidence of his existence otherwise? I'm afraid the answer is the former. You can believe the latter if you wish, but you then must explain how and where God exists, show that he exists, and show that he is the one responsible for taking the action in the first place - none of which you can do. It is for this reason that I can't accept your rationale that you display throughout your post and believe it makes more sense to not unnecessarily throw a god into the mix when things make just as much sense without him.

You argue from the viewpoint that the Bible starts off as infallible and perfect. You can't do that when trying to prove God's existence because you're assuming the conclusion. However, if you didn't have your Bible, you'd be up a creek without a paddle because it's the only tool you have. This is why nobody will be convinced of what you have to say. You must start with common ground and work your way up until you've proven your point without assuming anything your opponent doesn't.

So, to my readers, if you disagree with anything I've said, please leave a comment and explain what you think and why.

Proving God Exists: Logic

In this article, Eric Hovind attempts to prove that only through the existence of God does logic make sense. I feel like it's very amateurish, but some people might actually take him and Sye TenB seriously. So, off we go on another adventure in reason.

Why must we be logical? Where does logic come from? Who defines what is and isn't logical? The properties of logic are an interesting testimony to God, written on the hearts of even the most ardent unbeliever—whether he likes it or not. ... When an unbeliever argues against the Biblical God, ask yourself a very important, but fundamental, question about his logic: Why is it there?

We must be logical because to be illogical results in the inability to process information and filter out fiction from reality. Logic doesn't "come from" anywhere so much as is a framework to process said information. By comparing what we hear and see to what we know about the world, we are able to evaluate and either accept or reject claims based on what we already know to be true or false. This isn't complicated and doesn't require a god at all.

Think about it. The evolutionary unbeliever will have no problem arguing, using his ability to reason. He will debate every piece of evidence you show him, and while his logic is often flawed, he still attempts to use it. But why? After all, it doesn't fit with his worldview. It's not consistent with the way he accounts for the elements of reality.

No, it is the creationist's logic that is often flawed. Or should I say, lack thereof. However, this isn't a mud-flinging contest and I won't make it into one. I'll just say that in my experience, it's impossible to be honest and a creationist at the same time (provided you aren't ignorant about the relevant science). When I reject claims made by people like you, I do so not because it doesn't fit with my worldview but because it doesn't match with reality. My worldview is based on the evidence I see, not the other way around. See, creationists base and filter their evidence on and through their perception of what the bible says. If the bible says that something is true, it is. If it says something is false, it is. Anything that disagrees with it must be wrong. I'm not simply asserting it - you claim it on your own website. You have stated that

"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and science, can be valid if it contradicts Scripture."

This is the definition of closed-mindedness. You assume the bible to be true and evaluate reality looking through that lens, and not the other way around. It is YOU who rejects information based on your worldview, not me. If I thought the evidence pointed to a special creation, I would believe it because it would be a more intellectually honest position. But it doesn't and I don't.

For example, the evolutionary unbeliever typically believes that we are here as a result of random processes that took place by unguided chance, and that all things have changed greatly since the Big Bang. Somehow, nothing exploded, and from that, vital elements gave rise to other elements, which eventually gave rise to life, which ultimately gave rise to everything we see around us. Reality, in his worldview, randomly came into being, evolved in different ways in different regions, and finally produced the envy of all the universe—the unbeliever's brain.

It boggles my mind that people like you can continue to spout this time and time again despite your being told this isn't what scientists believe. It must take some real balls to ignore your leader's teachings about honesty and constantly lie about what your opponent's position is. The "evolutionary unbeliever" (whatever that means) doesn't believe that we are here by "random" processes through "unguided chance." This is completely false. All of nature follows laws that cause things to be the way they are today. If you jumped up and fell back to the earth, that wouldn't be "random chance," it would be because of the natural law of gravity. In the same way, chemicals form under certain conditions and account for a lot of what we know about elements giving rise to life. We know that natural selection is anything but random and plays an enormous role in determining which life will stay and which will go. Reality isn't random at all. The fact that you don't know why a certain event happened doesn't mean it was random but rather that you just don't understand all of the causes that went into it.

There is, however, a fundamental problem with this worldview. How does it account for abstract concepts such as the immaterial, unchanging, universal laws of logic? How do energy and matter relate to laws of logic, which cannot be picked up, painted, or squeezed? The fact of the matter is that the unbeliever cannot account for his logic, he just uses it. He just knows things must be logical.

The laws of logic are such things as "a proposition p cannot be both true and false at the same time." These laws are true regardless of whether we understand or realize them or not. This is simply the way things are. The "concept" is a human understanding of something that exists completely independent of us. Something need not be physical to exist - abstract concepts are still a part of this world, they just don't exist in the same way that we say a person exists. My saying that "this game I made has rules X, Y, and Z" don't mean that there must be some game rule-enforcer or that some higher power must exist for the rules to exist. I don't see how God is required to exist for logic to. I'll expand on this after the next quote:

You can hear the unbeliever demonstrating this in his cries for evidence, proof, and science. But could it be that logic is only consistent with God and His Word? After all, like logic, God is immaterial, unchanging, and universal. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He cannot be picked up, painted, or squeezed. In fact, Christians are the only ones who have a legitimate reason for using logic. Breaking the laws of logic amounts to bearing false witness, and God expressly forbids this. Christians believe the Bible, which says that God created everything, including abstracts such as laws of nature, morality, and logic.

God cannot be both God and not God at the same time. God cannot make a car be a car and a potato at the same time and in the same sense. If you assert that he could, you're asserting that God defies logic. If he is capable of this, then I have no reason to believe in his existence because of his illogical nature. On the flip-side, if the laws of logic do apply to him, then they exist apart from him and he has no control over them. This is also a problem for the Christian God. But why must it be the Christian God that enforces logic? You've simply asserted that it is God who made and enforces logic, but why couldn't it be Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a giant taco in space? Why must there be someone at all?

Obviously, the unbeliever has no explanation for his use of logic that is consistent with his worldview. In fact, he must actually operate within the worldview of Christians in order to debate anything! The analogy has been used of a man trying to argue against the existence of air. He must breathe it to argue against it!

As I've said, I fail to see why logic only makes sense in your worldview. On what basis do you claim a monopoly on this? I'm using logic to argue a point, but so are you. For you to logically assert that logic comes from God, aren't you already assuming the existence of logic as well? How does this place you in a better position than I? I'm asserting that logic works because it is just a method of processing information according to how we see the world works. You're asserting that logic works because of some other unproven assumption. I think Occam's razor favors me here.

Thus the unbeliever is reduced to foolishness, attempting to argue against God, while using God's laws to reason in the first place. He masquerades as an unbeliever, though he does so only by using the tools that can only be accounted for by the existence of an immaterial, unchanging, and universal God. He may attempt to argue past that by claiming that logic is manmade, but this would mean that man could change logic. Man could determine that two plus two equals five. Yet we instinctively know that this is contrary to logic, and would not do.

I do believe that logic is manmade, but I do not believe that logical absolutes are. Absolutes are true regardless of whether we believe them or not. Logic is the process of applying our knowledge to propositions to verify their truth. It's important to note that difference. Someone could try to assert that 2+2=5, but that wouldn't change the mathematical absolutes that we have made. 2+2 could equal 5, but only in a different mathematical universe. The laws of logic don't care if you believe them. They don't even exist in the strictest sense - they're just a conceptual description of the way the universe works.

The Law of God is written on our hearts, bearing witness that there is a God. The debates one might engage in with an unbeliever bring out yet another proof of God's existence. They show that, while he may not admit it, even the unbeliever operates on the knowledge of God, regardless how fervently he may suppress this knowledge. The unbeliever uses reason, which does not change, which transcends matter, and which is the same in all places and times. But he betrays his own professed worldview to do so. And so each time an unbeliever invokes logic, he is testifying to the Great God, who does not change, who transcends matter, and who, likewise, is the same in all places and times. 

What is this "Law of God" and how do you know I have it? And how do you know that God does not change? Have you ever met him? Did you know him one million years ago? Can you compare the difference? I suppose the only way you could think you know is by looking at the bible. Even assuming that it is the perfect word that he himself gave, you have to admit that he has changed. In the OT he was a strict god focusing more on obedience of rules rather than forgiveness. He constantly punished people, often in violent and painful ways, because of their perceived lack of morality or devotion to his commands. In the NT, he's portrayed as a much more loving fellow, extending his hand of love, mercy, and grace to all who would but believe (because it's apparently now through faith and not works as it was thousands of years ago). He changed his mind about penalties for breaking commandments and apparently threw out whole portions of the Law. So yeah, that's change. But even then, that's assuming that the bible explains Yahweh exactly as he is and without error - something I find completely unbelievable.

It makes sense to you that logic proves God, because everything to you proves God. From water to animals to humans to stars to happiness to science - everything is a testament to God's existence. It's tough to debate someone like this because there's nothing that would be an example of God's nonexistence. There's nothing that I could show you that would be evidence against God because of the way you view things. You can't accept that some things are what they are because they're just the way things work. In all of your words, you've failed to show that logic requires a god except for "you can't explain it without him!" But I can. As I have explained multiple times, logic is just applying reality to propositions of truth. If a proposition doesn't align with reality, we toss it out. If it does, we consider it and weigh it with what we know and believe to be true.

I could probably go on for some time, but suffice to say that this is one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard and I hope nobody falls for this sophomoric attempt to once again project a god onto something that needs no projection.

Proving God Exists: Foundations

Eric Hovind is a man who really has no idea what he is talking about (much like his father). His inherited website, Creation Science Evangelism, is a website dedicated to -what else? - creationism. He's got a series going called "How Do You Prove God Exists?" where he interviews a man named Sye TenBruggencate, from whom comes the website I blogged about not too long ago. It's only a 4-part series, so I thought it'd be relevant to go through these so-called "proofs" and see if they really hold up or if they're just creationist propaganda. So, without further ado, here's my response to "How Do You Prove God Exists? Foundations":

 When arguing for the existence of God, the unbeliever often demands that the discussion not include anything from Scripture. After all, if we are to prove the existence of God, we can't use the Bible..., because we must meet the unbeliever on neutral grounds. But this is a trap! When we drop our weapon and discuss anything with an unbeliever on only rational grounds, using only logic or science, the unbeliever does not join us on these "neutral" grounds. And don't think these grounds are neutral. To the contrary, he is the only one left with a weapon! He uses his rationalization. This is the foundation (or weapon) for the unbeliever's worldview—logic and rationalizing.

I agree that our starting point should be logic and rational thinking (not rationalizing, which is usually trying to justify preconceived notions... like a god). However, the bible does not fall under the category of presupposed truths and it should not. What if, for example, you are a Christian trying to dialogue with a Muslim. You have your Bible and he has his Qu'ran. Are you supposed to both quote scriptures back and forth until one of you gives in and converts? No, that doesn't work, and I think we all realize it. For the same reason here, you can't use your bible in the discussion of the existence of god because I don't think the bible is necessarily true on all points, especially not when it comes to its position on a god.

Christians build their worldview on the foundation of the Bible. God's Holy Word is the only sure truth we can build our house upon. All other ground is shifting sand. With that said, the unbeliever's worldview is built upon something as well: the ability to reason or invoke logic. As the Christian builds his worldview on the foundational assumption (faith) that God's Word is true and complete, the unbeliever, using the logic of empiricism, will often build his entire worldview on the assumption (faith) that all things must be observed to be true. However, while he is correct to point out that we are presupposing (assuming) God's Word is true, he is also presupposing that his logic is correct! We both start with our own fundamental assumptions. After all, how does he absolutely know that seeing is believing (empiricism)? What if his sight deceives him? How can he trust his logic to be sound? What if all of his senses and his capability to reason are skewed?

I like how here they seem to imply that our two presuppositions are at odds - it's faith vs. logic, people! Of course, I'm not saying that's the case. You, hopefully, would be using both faith and logic, whereas I do not have faith. However, I am not required to buy into your "faith" arguments and as such, we must both start with logic and move up from there. You state that empiricism is the assumption (faith) that all things must be observed to be true. This is a patently false claim. Empiricism is simply a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge arises from the senses. I have never claimed that something must be observed to be true necessarily, but I would have no justification for believing something that has never been observed in some sense.

Eric dips his foot into the cold waters of solipsism here, inquiring as to how I know that my sight doesn't deceive me, that my logic is sound, or if all of my senses and capability to reason are skewed. I would first respond by asking him the same question: how do you know your senses are functioning correctly? Faith in a god is not an acceptable answer. We're both working on the same playing field here. In theory, my senses could be malfunctioning and my sense of sight could be mistaken, but I have no reason to currently think so and I will operate as though everything is functioning correctly. I assume you'll do the same.

If we are to have a rational debate, I cannot allow you to simply assert the validity of the bible, because it carries no weight with me. Certainly, debate on that topic is up for grabs, but this idea that we're at least on "equal ground" with our two worldviews is false. Mine is based on observable, repeatable phenomena that can be verified by my peers. Yours is based on a book written thousands of years ago by men that understood little to nothing about how the world works. I think I have the stronger ground, but we can't start arguing "science vs. the bible" if we haven't yet settled on where the bible stands with respect to science. All clear? Ok.

Of course, the laws of logic are sound. After all, they are only consistent with God and His Word. But the unbeliever doesn't necessarily believe in God and His Word, and so it turns out that he has to borrow from our foundation to argue anything. So here's my point: if the unbeliever can keep his foundational presuppositions..., then why can't we? The unbeliever may ask you to be neutral, but don't be deceived—he's not being neutral, and you shouldn't be, either. God is the beginning of all things, and we must invoke the logic He gave us as well as the Word He gave us when discussing anything—be it science, doctrine, or even the existence of God. He is the Alpha and Omega. With all respect, He is the best six-gun a cowboy could need. Don't throw away your weapon, Christian. Don't surrender your foundation. 

Wait now... what do you mean by "the laws of logic are...only consistent with God and his Word?" How do you justify that statement? At what point, exactly, do I "borrow" from your foundation to argue? These assertions require more than  simply being stated to be taken seriously and you've put forth absolutely no effort in justifying them. I have to completely ignore that you ever said that to continue to respect your understanding of logic. You can keep your presuppositions, if you wish, but you cannot use them during a debate. You are not allowed to say things like "God exists because it says in the bible that only the fool thinks He doesn't exist." Those statements, like I've said before, presuppose the accuracy of the bible and basically fall under the circular reasoning category.

When I mention God or Creationism on this blog, I expect people to disagree with my views. What we can't do is have a discussion that begins with you quoting scripture at me or telling me what God thinks (because obviously you speak on his behalf). If we are going to have a debate over existence, science, or the bible, that's fine, but you will have to prove your point without using the bible because I don't care what it says. How the world works (evolution or otherwise) is a fine topic, but the bible has no authority in that area and if you want to make a claim about it, observe the world itself. Don't go running to a book that was written by ignorant sheepherders. If you want to talk about the bible with me, you can't assume it's already true. You have to show why I should believe it to be true. I, likewise, will show why I don't think it's true because of its inherent contradictions with itself, science, history, or what-have-you.

Does that make sense? Make your claim and support it with objectively true facts - the more the better. After all, if the bible is true and Yahweh is real, you should have plenty of facts on your side, right?

Can we "stand on the promises" logically?‏

This week, Answers in Genesis released a slightly shorter but oh-so-sweet email newsletter. It's such a privilege to be on this mailing list because it's really become the highlight of my week. I feel like I barely have to comment on it at all. Any rational person will just stare and laugh. Nonetheless, let's begin the breakdown.

When explaining their beliefs, Christians often feel they must first prove the Bible or prove the existence of God. This approach reveals that they do not yet understand the Bible’s approach, known as presuppositional apologetics.

If I recall correctly, the creationist Eric Hovind likes to talk a lot about "evolutionists'" presuppositions about the theory, stating that they start off assuming that it's true and look for evidence to support it. (We all know that's not the case and that's not how science works, but let's not focus on that now.) It's actually funny how AiG is now trying to turn the tables on us and tell us that this is how Christian apologetics are supposed to work. However, this wouldn't be the first time that two Christian ministries tell us completely opposite things.

Presuppositions are simply beliefs that everyone has that affect how they think, view the world, interpret evidence, and read the Bible. Apologetics is a reasoned defense of beliefs. So presuppositional apologetics is a reasoned defense of Christian beliefs based on recognizing our presuppositions.

Presuppositions are not merely beliefs, they are beliefs that rest upon assumptions. Clearly, if this is how far back Christian apologetics has been set back - that they must now rely on assumptions - the surely, they must be a dying cause. However, it's difficult for me to tell what sense of assumption they're talking about here, so I'll have to give them some benefit of the doubt. If they perhaps mean that the presuppositions are things that people believe prior to engaging in a discussion, then I can accept that as somewhat reasonable.

For instance, our presupposition is that God exists and He has given us His Word (the Bible) that is absolute truth. So we use the Bible as the basis for how to think, interpret evidence, explain the world around us, and read the Bible. An atheist’s presupposition will most likely be that there is no God and that truth is relative. An atheist believes that man decides truth, and so he thinks, interprets evidence, and views the world and Bible accordingly.

Whoa, whoa now. Slow down. Why start throwing out falsities right at the end of your letter? I already had enough to deal with here. If you're a Christian trying to dialogue with a non-believer, you simply can't rely on your presuppositions to be convincing. Maybe Christians don't understand this - after all, I get quoted plenty of Bible verses that claim I'm wrong and am destined to an eternal hell, but why should I care? If you're a Christian, my quoting the Koran or Vedas to you won't be any kind of effective. Why do you think it will be any different in my case? It may be tough, but you have to dig deeper until you can arrive at something upon which to debate that does not rely upon mutually conflicting presuppositions. You just won't get anywhere otherwise.

But really, why do butcher the atheist's position so terribly? Most atheists don't believe there is no god, they just lack beliefs in any. There's a difference (though it's probably irrelevant to you). I don't know of any atheist that think the truth is relative, but if one ever did say that, I'd ask him, "Is that statement absolutely or only relatively true?" That's a self-defeating statement. I believe the difference between Christianity and atheism is the idea that we can attain absolute truth. Simply because it exists does not mean we can always know it, and the fact that we don't know everything about anything means that we probably never do. What I think is truth is based on empirical evidence confirmed by other unbiased sources - not the books of the Bible which were written in a time of mass ignorance. (Though I don't mean to imply that the Bible is totally ignorant on all issues, because it's not. There are good things to be found in it, to be sure, but there are also many bad and incorrect things.)

I don't believe that man decides truth any more than rocks define it. Truth is "what is," and what is, is, independent of us wanting to believe it (or being able to know or even understand the concept of any arbitrarily chosen truth). No, Christians are the ones that rely on man to decide truth. Men wrote the bible and men are responsible for what is inside it, in every way. Slapping the label "divinely inspired" on the cover and calling it inerrant and forever true (no matter what the opposition) is a novel idea, but doesn't make it any more true than a documentary with Michael Moore's signature on it.