Archive for the ‘Creation vs. Evolution’ Category

(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’

Advertisements

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

[Letter 10]:

Greetings Soldier,

You do not disappoint! I thought that you might ask for some practical examples of how to put this information into use when dealing with objections and/or arguments against, God, the Bible, or Christianity in general. Well, here you go! Let’s look at some scenarios you likely have or will encounter in your evangelistic endeavors:

First, suppose the unbeliever’s argument against God is presented in the form of a moral objection (e.g. claiming that He is evil, that certain acts in the Bible are immoral, etc.).  Now, you could spend a lot of time and energy providing evidence as to why that is not the case (only to likely have your evidence discarded or dismissed due the presuppositional bias of the unbeliever), or you could (and should) simply challenge their foundational assumption here and ask them how they arrive at absolute, objective standards of behavior in a universe without God in the first place.  After all, if God does not exist, there could be no absolute moral Authority and, therefore, no binding standard of behavior by which anyone (least of all, God) SHOULD conduct themselves.  If moral standards are arbitrarily stipulated, then the unbeliever loses any rational foundation for their complaint against God, since anyone is free to stipulate their own standard of morality in such a universe and no behavior could ever be truly ‘right’ or ‘wrong’–just ‘different’ from someone else’s personal preference.  The very argument itself reveals the internal inconsistency and contradictory nature of the unbeliever’s position and, as a result, makes this objection AGAINST God’s existence a valid proof FOR His existence!

Now, let’s suppose the argument comes in the form of a ‘logical’ complaint against God (e.g. the Bible is illogical, Christianity is nonsense, etc.).  Again, much time and energy could be spent providing ample, solid evidence to the contrary, only to likely be told “well that doesn’t prove anything.”  Instead of putting God on trial before the unbeliever, the more effective (and Biblical) approach would be to expose the self-defeating nature of such an argument by simply asking how there can exist any meaningful, objective, universal standard of logic and reasoning in a world without God.  Obviously, if there is no true Ultimate Authority, then there can be no absolute standard by which human beings should conduct their thinking and reasoning.  Therefore, no thinking or reasoning could ever truly be said to be ‘incorrect’ or ‘illogical’—just ‘different’ from the thinking and reasoning of someone else.  This internal inconsistency in the unbeliever’s position yet again testifies to the inescapable, self-evident truth of God’s existence and Authority. It also adequately demonstrates that, like the air, one must assume His existence to even begin to argue against it (which makes that position the very epitome of ‘foolishness’). That is why when the Bible refers to those who deny the existence of God as ‘fools’ (Psalms 14:1), it is not merely engaging in name calling.  This is the proper term for someone who willfully refuses to acknowledge that which has been so plainly and openly revealed. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

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

[Letter 11]:

Greetings Soldier,

Your recent enquiries reveal a deep thirst for knowledge and an eagerness to put what you have learned thus far into action. Needless to say, the Heavenly Hierarchy is pleased with this! Regarding your question about whether unbelievers (whom we know to be living in willful denial of God’s revealed truth) are necessarily lying when they profess to believe the things they say they do: the answer is ‘no’—they are not necessarily lying but are often ‘self-deceived’. Remember, satan does have the ability to blind the minds of those who deny God in order to keep the Gospel from reaching their hearts. One of the ways he accomplishes this task is by means of cultivating and promoting an attitude of ‘willful ignorance‘ (merely one form of self-deception) on the part of the unbeliever with regards to things concerning God, Christ, and the Bible.  It has been rightly stated that one will not receive into their heart as true that which their mind rejects as false. Therefore, it is the concerned Christian’s urgent duty to engage in pulling down such ‘intellectual strongholds’ through the bold presentation and declaration of the truth in order that the unbeliever might be freed from the captivity of satanic deception and granted repentance unto salvation by God the Father, through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Understood in this light, Christ’s declaration in John 8:32–‘you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free’–is received with a new and fresh appreciation in the mind and heart of the Christian.

In response to your second question: ‘yes’ I do advocate trying out these arguments online. There you will find no shortage of anti-Christian blogs, posts, and websites where you may engage the unbeliever, expose the error of their worldview, and enlighten them with Biblical truth. Be forewarned, though, that unbelievers do not take kindly to having the basis of their worldview challenged and exposed in this way and you will almost certainly encounter hostility like you never have before. In truth, this is really a positive, since it is a sign that the arguments have struck a nerve and are provoking some discomfort in the unbeliever’s state of mind. Besides, any reaction is always preferred over apathy (since apathy is but one sure sign of intellectual and spiritual ‘deadness’). So long as there is passion and/or zeal present (even misguided passion and/or zeal), then there is hope of a genuine conversion; after all, who can forget the grand transformation that took place when a certain misguided zealot named Saul was converted into that radical new creature in Christ—the Apostle Paul! If you are interested in beginning a conversation on the Dialogue.org site you mentioned, then I suggest you simply state your position plainly as to how Christianity provides the foundation for preconditions of intelligibility and then challenge the unbelievers there with a few direct questions about how those things are reconciled within their worldview. The purpose of this is twofold: it will provide the unbeliever with an opportunity to tell you about their worldview so that an internal critique of it can be performed, while providing you with the opportunity to plainly demonstrate to them how and why Christianity alone provides a rational, internally consistent, foundation for the preconditions of intelligibility required to hold a discussion in the first place (knowledge truth, logic, etc.). For example, you could begin with something like this:

*’Isn’t Dialogue.org great?! We have a place where anyone can come and argue any point about virtually any topic! However, an astute debater will find that the very concept of ‘debate’ assumes the existence of logic, truth, and knowledge. Since laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariants and truth and knowledge are certain by definition, each of these concepts can be (and are) made sense of in the Christian worldview (since they reflect the absolute, immaterial nature of a Sovereign God who has revealed Himself to mankind such that we can be certain of who He is).One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?’

This should elicit enough response from the other side to keep you busy for a while and provide you with plenty of hands on practice in evaluating non-Christian worldviews for the presence of arbitrariness, inconsistency, and the preconditions of intelligibility. Have fun,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’

*To see this approach utilized at a real online debate site, check out: http://www.debate.org/forums/Religion/topic/55783/

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

[Letter 12]:

Greetings Soldier,

I see the discussion has now turned to the laws of logic. I am happy to help guide you in how to formulate your responses to the latest responses you have received. First of all, it is crucial to understand that laws of logic, by nature, exist as abstract, invariant, universal laws for correct reasoning. That is, they are not made of matter, they never change, and they apply in all places and at all times. As such, they pose quite a problem for the unbeliever, since none of these characteristics agree with their version of the universe, which is allegedly wholly materialistic, changing, and different from place to place. Consider the logical law of non-contradiction for instance; it states that contradictions in reasoning (and in reality) are absolutely fallacious and cannot ever be true. However, how does the unbeliever justify such a claim in their worldview since they don’t have absolute knowledge of the universe, nor have they observed the future to know what cannot EVER be.

Whereas, the Christian appeals to Divine Revelation from God as their basis for knowing some things to be absolutely true (such as laws of logic, for instance) since an omniscient, omnipotent God could (and does) reveal things to human beings so that they can be known with certainty to be true—the unbeliever (due to their pre-commitment to a naturalistic, empiricist worldview) must rely solely on their limited observations and experiences of the universe as the foundation for each of the things they claim to believe. This means that the Christian can reconcile the existence of abstract, invariant, universal laws within their worldview, but the unbeliever cannot and must accept such concepts solely upon blind faith. Naturally, any such position that rests upon blind faith alone, while also undermining the very existence of logic, is the epitome of an illogical (and false) position. Here to serve,

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 16]:

Greetings Soldier,

Yes, I can definitely see that your unbelieving opponents are not very happy with your challenges to their professed worldview (in fact, ‘unhappy’ would be quite the understatement to describe the nature of their most recent remarks). Remember, the unbeliever has much to lose in these types of discussions, once it is exposed what their worldview truly amounts to, since they often enjoy being viewed as ‘intellectuals’ on internet forums and loathe the idea that their position is really just one of blind, irrational faith. Therefore, you should expect open hostility such as the name calling being engaged in as of late, since it is no doubt very uncomfortable (think glass palace during an earthquake) to have one’s most fundamental beliefs challenged and then demonstrated to be undeniably false.

As a positive, this is one crystal clear way of demonstrating that the unbeliever is indeed engaging in suppression of the truth (just as the Bible states in Romans 1:18)—that is, they are not continuing to hold to their current professed position BECAUSE of rational reasons, but IN SPITE OF them–simply because they happen to dislike the alternative (i.e. bowing the knee to God). The purely emotional nature of the objections at this point are really exactly what one would expect from someone with simply a personal ‘ax to grind’ and nothing more. Sure, the unbeliever may not like the God of the Bible, but that is definitely not a rational basis for their rejection of Christianity and/or the truth of the Bible. At this point, you’ve done your job and it’s probably just best to politely thank them for sharing their opinions with you and invite them to return to the discussion when they have something rational to contribute. Oh, and do not cease to pray for these individuals–that they might come to their senses, cease their suppression of the Truth, and repent. Here to serve,

Your Heavenly ‘Angent’