Archive for the ‘bias’ Category

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 4]:

Greetings Soldier,

I appreciate very much your enthusiastic questions! I see a hunger for truth and understanding in you that the Father finds most pleasing. It is His great delight to ‘pull back the veil’ and reward those who seek truth with the answers that they desire as they ask, seek, and knock with confidence in Christ. It is my great pleasure to be the means by which this treasure is conveyed to you, as the only thing more joyful than receiving knowledge is imparting it to those who sincerely desire it. Indeed, the acceptance and appreciation of truth by those who gladly receive it is its own reward to those from whom it is imparted. With that in mind, let’s attend to that very thing.

First, you asked specifically for ways to convey to unbelievers how Creation itself demonstrates the existence of God. One very simple, yet powerful, way to convey this truth is to simply point out the obvious—that just as paintings don’t paint themselves and buildings don’t build themselves, creation cannot have ‘created’ itself. To assert that it has done so (and without having observed it or anything else ever having done so) is to abandon a stance of rationality and good sense in exchange for blind faith and wishful thinking. After all, who but a fool would attempt to argue that natural laws (such as thermodynamics, gravity, physics, etc.) can exist without a Lawgiver? No doubt, you have already noticed that many times, when in the midst of discussing these issues with unbelievers, they will often appeal to what they have read in science books or atheistic literature in order to try to support their faith in evolution—-in other words, they ultimately are asking you to join them in exercising blind faith in something they have only read about in a book—-how ironic indeed!!  Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

 

Advertisements

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 7]:

Greetings Soldier,

I’m glad that you are beginning to grasp these concepts and wholeheartedly agree with you that the aforementioned topic of worldviews–and the presuppositions upon which they are founded–warrants further commentary. Indeed, volumes could be (and have been) penned about this topic and its effect upon the human psyche and behavior. Simply put, it is a matter of two opposing foundational belief systems that are as different as night and day and/or black and white (and which are as diametrically opposed as the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of satan from which they each originate).

Case in point: the Christian begins with two basic assumptions which form the foundation of their worldview. First, they assume that God exists and secondly they assume that His Word (the Bible) is true. It is through the ‘lens’ of these two assumptions that the Christian then begins to reason, form their conclusions, and interpret their observations about the universe in which we live. In contrast, the unbeliever assumes that God does not exist and that the Bible is not His inspired, infallible Word and then proceeds to reason and interpret the world around them from THAT position. This is why Christians and unbelievers can examine the exact same piece of evidence and then reach two totally different conclusions about it; it’s because they have two completely different starting points from which their evaluation of any evidence is conducted and from which their conclusions about the validity of that (and all) evidence as a valid proof is determined. Whatever does not correspond with the primary presuppositions of their respective worldviews will be rejected while that which agrees with those presuppositions will be accepted.

Therefore, the real issue is not one of evidence at all, but of those foundational assumptions (presuppositions) through which people interpret the evidence in the first place and whether or not they are logically sound and rationally defensible. It goes without saying that if something cannot pass this test, it should be rejected as false (since that would make it illogical and irrational by definition). Let’s examine both sets of presuppositions to see which passes the test. First, we’ll look at the Christian’s presuppositions:

God Exists: This presupposition is justifiable/provable after the fact, in that God has revealed Himself to all mankind both directly and indirectly via natural and special revelation. Again, natural revelation is God’s revelation of Himself by natural means (through His Creation), while special revelation pertains to God’s revealing of Himself via supernatural means (the Bible, His Spirit, and His Son, Jesus Christ). Through these avenues, God has made it possible for mankind to be certain of who He is and what He expects with regards to their behavior, reasoning, and salvation.

The Bible is true: This assumption is also provable after the fact, by the impossibility of the contrary. That is, the contrary position (i.e. The Bible is not true) ends in absurdity and irrationality, which makes it false. Consider what the Bible says about this in Romans 1:21-22:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

According to Scripture, when someone rejects or fails to acknowledge God and the truth of the Bible as the foundation of their thinking and reasoning, we can expect their thoughts to become ‘vain’ and ‘foolish’ (illogical). Let’s see if that’s what we get when we examine the unbelievers’ presuppositions that God does not exist and the Bible is not true: First, it should be pointed out that, when someone makes these assumptions, they are forced, by default, into the position of embracing evolution as the means and mechanism by which life as we know it exists on earth today (as opposed to the Biblical account of creation as found in Genesis). As such, there are several other assumptions (some of which I have mentioned already) that they also have to accept as a consequence of this position. Namely:

~In the beginning there was nothing.

~Nothing somehow turned into something.

~The something which came from nothing somehow blew up and became everything.

~Life somehow arose from that non-living matter.

~Randomness somehow became ordered (i.e. non-random).

~Intelligence somehow came from non-intelligent matter.

~Morality somehow evolved from amoral (non-moral) matter.

~Absolute (unchanging), immaterial (not made of matter), universal (applying everywhere and at all times) laws such as laws of logic, math, science, and morality somehow came from a strictly material, constantly changing, random chance universe.

The problem with these assumptions is, they are all unjustified and unjustifiable. Each of them is contrary to sound reasoning and good science, as they are not consistent with reality nor are they based upon ANY observable data or evidence gathered through actual repeatable testing and experimentation. Rather, they stem from a flawed belief system about the unobserved past and, as such, are based upon nothing more than blind faith. It should be pointed out that believing something and acting upon that belief with no logical reason for doing so is but one form of irrationality. This makes those who hold to anti-Christian positions a lot like the young man in the ‘Dead men do bleed’ illustration; that is, they hold to their position in spite of any logically sound reasons, not because of them. Without exception, this is the sad end result when one abandons the absolute Truth of God and His Word in favor of ANY competing non-Christian worldview (including those which advocate the existence of a generic or specific ‘deity’ (or deities) other than the God of the Bible). The following quote from Christian Author Ken Ham sums this up nicely. He says:

“It’s not a matter of whether one is biased or not. It is really a question of which bias is the best bias with which to be biased.”

If nothing else, hopefully it has become clear that everyone has certain tightly held foundational beliefs that form the framework for their worldview (even though they may not always be aware of those beliefs). However, not all worldviews (or their corresponding framework of beliefs) can be true. In fact, only one IS true—the Christian one. I trust you will find this newfound knowledge refreshing and an asset to you in your witnessing endeavors. At your service,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 13:  A Word of Encouragement]

Greetings Soldier,

Don’t worry about feeling overwhelmed right now, as these concepts can take some time to wrap your brain around. Remember, though, always doggedly stick to your guns and keep challenging and exposing the internal inconsistencies of the unbelievers’ worldview, as they would like nothing more than for you to stop this line of argumentation and engage them on ‘neutral’ ground. However, ‘neutral’ ground does not exist with regards to this issue, as one either submits to God as their Ultimate Authority and the foundation of their thinking and reasoning, or they do not. I remind you of the very words of Jesus in Matthew [12:30] and Luke [11:23] when He stated that someone is either for Him or they are against Him, but certainly never ‘in between’. After all, when one even argues that there is neutral ground to be held here, they are necessarily disagreeing with the words of Jesus in the Bible and are, therefore, adopting a non-neutral position in relation to Biblical Authority and the truth of Christianity. Do not fall for this tactic! The unbeliever is NOT neutral in their presuppositions about God and the Bible and you SHOULD NOT be either. In the paraphrased words of Peter [1 Peter 3:15], ‘sanctify Christ in your heart and be prepared to give an answer to everyone that asks you of the reason of the hope that is within you with meekness and fear’. The foundation provided by God and His Word is indeed a sure one, and nothing overcomes and exposes that which is false like absolute Truth from THE absolute Authority. Stand upon that firm foundation, and you will always prevail. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 14]:

Greetings Soldier,

I see that some of the ‘intellectual’ unbelievers have presented arguments for how they can know things to be true in their worldview. Let’s walk through some of these, as they are an invaluable resource for your training in mastering the ‘Bible First’ (presuppositional) method of defending the faith. The gist of the argument from the unbelievers so far is that they are able to know things for certain because they use their senses and reasoning to make observations and formulate rational conclusions about the world around them through ‘trial and error’. Can you spot the inconsistency here? Indeed, human senses and reasoning are wonderful gifts from God and provide the means of exploring and learning about God’s creation and would, therefore, be expected to be basically reliable and trustworthy according to the Christian worldview. However, what basis does any non-Christian have for trusting their senses and reasoning according to their professed worldview? No doubt, they would say that their observations and experiences have told them that their senses and reasoning are basically reliable over time, but this will not suffice. After all, it is via one’s reasoning that their sensory input and experiences are interpreted, which means that they are basically arguing that they ‘sense and reason that their senses and reasoning are reliable’. Of course, this is viciously circular and renders that position an irrational one–and necessarily false. If one does not know for certain that their senses and reasoning are trustworthy to begin with, then obviously they cannot know anything at all. I recommend pointing this out as soon as possible (and for their own good). Remember, the truth only hurts when it should. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 15]:

Greetings Soldier,

It seems the hornet’s nest has been stirred. In fact, the comments you’ve fielded thus far in your online endeavors include remarks from professing atheists, agnostics, theists, Hindus, Buddhists, and the list goes on. What you will find, though, is that each of these positions ultimately contains the same fundamental logical flaws and destroys the possibility of knowledge, truth, logic, or morality–rendering them all rationally indefensible and absurd. Consider one of the first responses you received from the atheist who asserted that ‘it is not possible to know anything to be true with 100% certainty’. Did you catch the contradiction here? Essentially, he is claiming to know with 100% certainty that it is not possible to be 100% certain of anything. Of course, this is a self-defeating argument, which makes it false. On the other hand, if he wants to argue that he is not 100% certain that it is impossible to know anything to be true with 100% certainty, then he is forced to admit that, since he is uncertain of his argument (that 100% certainty is NOT possible), then it IS possible to know things to be true with 100% certainty. Either way, he ends up demonstrating that it is possible to know things for certain to be true and that he has no rational answer as to why that is in his worldview. As such, it is exposed that he must accept the existence of knowledge and truth solely on blind faith alone, whereas the Christian can (and does) justify their ability to know some things with certainty by appealing to God’s Divine Revelation of Himself (via both direct and indirect means) to all mankind. I trust I don’t have to remind you that blind faith is but a form of irrationality (and, not to mention, the basis of all superstition as well). Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

~P.S. It should also be pointed out that, once someone professes that they can’t know anything for certain, then they have forfeited any logical basis or justification for all of the things they may claim to be true (since knowledge (i.e. ‘justified true belief’) is certain by definition, as one cannot know something to be true which could also be false at the same time and in the same way). You should keep this in mind as you address future comments. Nothing wrong with holding the unbeliever to his professed beliefs in order to show the irrational conclusions they ultimately lead to.

(A series of scripted correspondences from a ‘Heavenly helper’ to a Christian Soldier)

[Letter 18]:

Greetings Soldier,

Regarding your last correspondence; I assure you that you’re doing fine. No need to be concerned about the empty allegation that you are engaging in a double standard or being ‘unfair’ in your requests for the unbelievers to provide their worldview’s objective, consistent basis for the existence of preconditions of intelligibility (which must be appealed to and utilized in order to even begin to hold a rational discussion). Besides, as should be crystal clear by now, the unbeliever has no way of justifying such an allegation to begin with, since there can exist no objective standard of logical ‘fairness’ in a worldview without God. Not only that, it should also be pointed out that you have already provided the justification for how abstract, universal, invariants are justified in the Christian worldview, from the get go (as they are a reflection of the abstract, universal, invariant nature of the God of the Bible). Perhaps it would be helpful to remind those making the allegations of how discussions work: you provide your logically defensible argument, they provide theirs, and THEN they are compared and contrasted via internal critique to see whose is true.

Of course, because the unbeliever has no rationally defensible argument or justification to support their belief in abstract, universal, invariants (logic, truth, knowledge, etc.) there can really be no discussion at all, since they must borrow these concepts from the Christian worldview in order to even begin to levy any argument against the Christian worldview. Needless to say, in doing so, they are assuming the truth of the very thing they are trying to refute and, subsequently, destroying their own position. This only further substantiates the undeniable reality that Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary (since the contrary position cannot be rationally defended and always ends in some form of absurdity). Don’t ever be shy about exposing this for the unbeliever’s own benefit. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’