|Posted by obsessd on March 3, 2012 at 12:05 AM||comments (0)|
I was having another discussion elsewhere online with someone once when I was challenged to prove to him that the God of the Bible was real and accurate, but I was not permitted to use the Bible as evidence during this discussion. I don't know about the rest of you, but I find this really frustrating and unfair. I can't think off the top of my head any other way of proving this. To quote Ray Comfort, if you want to prove the president is real, you look in the White House (I believe that was how it was worded, I may be ever so slightly off). But apparently to prove the Biblical God exists, the Bible is invallid evidence.
I challenged him in return to find an evolutionary biologist who is capable of explaining the theory of evolution, supporting it and making it believable (which in itself, with no hands tied, would already be an extraordinary feat, to my mind) but that person is forbidden to discuss Darwin or the empirical method at all. I doubt that it can be done, and that person would likely argue that's not fair to place such restrictions. I agree, it's not. So they should not be placed on anyone irrespective of their particular system of belief or argument's possition.
Imagine if you just saw the best movie of your life (for me that'd probably be Avatar) and as you're talking to your friend the next day, he tells you he's not seen that movie, but he's sure it's horrible. You try to explain why you loved it so much. You want to talk about the movie, but he won't hear it. He's fine with you proving it's the best movie ever, but he wants to hear nothing of the movie, and when you tell him fine, see it for yourself then, he utterly refuses. He wants you to provide evidence for your claim without using any of the strongest evidence.
The fact I cannot prove God, the Biblical true God exists, without using His Word to do so doesn't prove that God's not real, or that the Bible is false. It merely proves the demands were unreasonable. No matter who you are, I think you would have to agree that if you want someone to prove something is true, you don't dismiss the bulk of their evidence to begin with because you don't believe in it. If you did, you'd be on their side in the first place. The point of a debate is not to tie the hands of your oponent, but to discuss the matter civilly and with good interest and openness and consideration. That can't happen when I'm intellectually handcuffed, no matter what my opinion on the matter is.
Just some food for thought. God bless!
|Posted by obsessd on March 2, 2012 at 10:50 PM||comments (0)|
Ever meet someone who tried to use free will against God, to use it as an arguement for His non-existance? I was talking to someone online once who tried to do that very thing. The arguement went something like this:
If there is a God who is all-knowing and knows everything I will do well before I do it, I can't have free will because His knowledge of my future prohibits me from making any choice but the one He knows I will make.
So this was my response to that statement. I asked him, if he had a choice between two options, call them Option A and Option B, would the knowledge that there is an omniscient, all-knowing being out there who knows what decision he will make impact in any way what choice he will desire and choose to make? He answered no. Congratulations, I said. You have free will.
The idea of an all-knowing God is hardly incompatible with the concept of free-will. They are really complimentary. Our ability to make decisions, to go against our own instincts if we so choose, and to act on rational thought, is a God-given gift. One we so often as humans have abused to deny the very existance of the Gift-Giver. This arguement is akin to trying to claim that the gift proves there is no giver. You'd never claim that because you recieved birthday gifts, none of the party guests exist. But people try to claim that God does not exist based on the existance of His gift to us. It is, as just proved, a very flawed arguement.
The next time someone claims there is no God based on that aguement, perhaps asking them if that knowledge will affect their decision-making process will close the arguement down. It did work for me. God bless.
|Posted by obsessd on February 25, 2012 at 11:55 PM||comments (0)|
The Big Bang only makes atheistic sense on the very surface, because once you delve beneath that surface, you find out all it was was a facade of calm on the troubled waters. The theory goes that there was a tiny point called a singularity into which all matter today in existance was tightly compacted. This point was infinitely small and infinitely dense (which itself should defy logical understanding. If you have a finite ammount of matter at your disposal, then there should be a finite size and density to any object which it contains) and at some point, it exploded. That explosion apparently is the cause for the universe we see around us today. There's just one problem: it's wrong. Look at explosions. They don't produce order, they produce chaos. But the universe we live in is obviously an ordered universe. Sure things still smash into each other, but that's small scale. Galaxies colliding happens, but we don't see every single one smashing into each other. No, we see, on the large scale, uniformity and order in almost every respect. Explosions do not produce that, they produce chaos. Saying that a large explosion created the ordered universe we see around us would be like saying you were down at the dump and saw this huge explosion and when the dust settled a full dinette set was sitting where only garbage had been a moment before. It makes absolutely no sense. There is one thing that does, however: God. God is a God of order, not of chaos. The whole of the Bible points to that fact. Therefore if we see order around us, it makes sense it was produced by a being who takes joy in order, who is the source of order Himself. From a philosophical standpoint, one might even say that chaos is nothing more than the absense of God's presence. This makes more logical sense when you dig into it than the Big Bang can ever hope to have.