Now that I have that out of the way let us get to it. Recently I have become engaged in a few debates via various social networks. The debates quickly turned into me trying so hard to share the Glory of God with my friends that were atheist or agnostic.
I have spread the word in the past, with little success and yet I have been staying with the same set of arguments. Insanity can be defined as repeating the same actions over and over and expecting different results. By this definition I have been insane for my arguments for the Lord.
I praise the Lord and my Father for opening my eyes to a more biblical approach to 'convincing' non believers. I say 'convincing' because that is what I was trying to do in the past even though this is not our duty to the Lord. Only by the Grace of God Himself can someone be convinced. Our duty as the Lord's servants is to simply state the truths of the Lord. The rest is in His hands.
The first mistake I have run into, and I'm sure many of you have too, is using the Bible to argue for the Lord in such a way that puts our ultimate authority on trial. Rather than put our ultimate authority on trial, we should undermine the very ability of the unbeliever to judge Scripture (-Thanks for the edit Sye!). I will show how in just a moment and also provide some great tools to help you learn and preach this apologetic.
The second major mistake I have made is to use evidence to prove God or Jesus Christ to a non believer. This is a horrible thing to do and I never realized it until recently. By going into a debate like this we are placing God and the Bible on trial. This should NEVER happen! We know that God is the ultimate judge and authority. We should always debate from this stance rather than placing God on trial. The fact that we even allow this to happen is a disgrace to the Lord.
If you were a police officer, prosecutor, or something of that likes, would you place charges on an individual if you KNEW they were innocent? Of course you wouldn't. Now would you place charges if the accuser was a known criminal and he was accusing the Judge that you KNEW was innocent and pure? No way anyone would, in fact you might even come to place charges on the accuser! It's not our job to judge or place these charges onto these accusers, but you see my point here hopefully. We should never allow God to be placed on trial. By allowing this to happen it can show that we ourselves don't believe He is our ultimate authority.
Rather than showing pieces of evidence let us remove any and all Logic from the accusers world view before they can even present the evidence they may have. We can show that without God there is no way to know anything or argue anything. This is a bold claim but let me do my best at explaining this.
Logic itself is impossible without the Christian God. Logic as most everyone will agree is unchanging, non-material, and universal. This is an impossibility if the universe is a random sea of probabilities and evolution. How would you have anything unchanging in a random and chaotic universe? How would anything non-material exist in a purely material existence?
These same arguments can apply to Science, Math, and Morals. The Bible tells us that there is no man or woman that does not believe or has not heard the Word of God. There are simply people that have suppressed the truth and people who profess the truth.
Romans 1 vs. 18 - 21 says:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 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 men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
What we can and should do is preach this argument to show that without God, nobody has a leg to stand on in an argument at all. This apologetic is powerful and must be preached with only love and compassion. This will rip the world view of anyone right out from under them so expect a lot of push back. Speak the truth and pray for everyone you encounter and share this knowledge with. By the Grace of God they will Repent and be able to receive the Truth and embrace rather than suppress it.
I hope I have relayed this argument in a easy to understand manner for anyone who has stumbled upon this. I however can not take any credit for this approach. As I said the Lord and my Father are the ones that opened my eyes to this. http://proofthatgodexists.org/ was the starting point for this information for me. I urge you all to go there and take the tests and go through the media section. I have not yet read Sye's books but I intend to do so very soon so that I can grasp this truly amazing apologetic further.
I love you all, regardless of your beliefs, stances, or race. God bless you all, never loose sight of the fact that YOU are representing God himself. You are supposed to act as God would. Sinning in anyways is a lie to everyone. You are saying God would steal, cheat, murder etc... This is why God can not stand sinning of ANY size or severity.
If you sent an ambassador to represent you and they acted rude or unpleasant in any way I'm sure you would be very upset as well. We all deserve the wrath of God, but he is Amazing! He has given us salvation with the blood of Christ, his only son. Our sins are forgiven though we are still representing him. Keep this in mind every day! Again God Bless you all and I love you.
I hope I have relayed this argument in a easy to understand manner for anyone who has stumbled upon this. I however can not take any credit for this approach. As I said the Lord and my Father are the ones that opened my eyes to this. http://proofthatgodexists.org/ was the starting point for this information for me. I urge you all to go there and take the tests and go through the media section. I have not yet read Sye's books but I intend to do so very soon so that I can grasp this truly amazing apologetic further.
I love you all, regardless of your beliefs, stances, or race. God bless you all, never loose sight of the fact that YOU are representing God himself. You are supposed to act as God would. Sinning in anyways is a lie to everyone. You are saying God would steal, cheat, murder etc... This is why God can not stand sinning of ANY size or severity.
If you sent an ambassador to represent you and they acted rude or unpleasant in any way I'm sure you would be very upset as well. We all deserve the wrath of God, but he is Amazing! He has given us salvation with the blood of Christ, his only son. Our sins are forgiven though we are still representing him. Keep this in mind every day! Again God Bless you all and I love you.
So there are a few problems here. Universal constants are not constant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant#How_constant_are_the_physical_constants.3F
ReplyDeleteWe have no clue if things as fundamental as gravity and electromagnetism work the same everywhere in the universe because even if you were to go 100,000 of light years from earth, you are still in the milky way galaxy, which is only one in an unknown number of galaxies.
Math is a made up tool we use to describe the world around us. There is nothing universal about math in and of itself.
Logic is defined as 1. Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity: "experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic".
2. A particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference: "Aristotelian logic"
So even if everything was complete chaos, we would still find ways to derive as much meaning as we could. We are pretty good at finding patterns even in chaos "Jesus in the grilled cheese sammich" etc
The point is, the universe is not as constant as you might have been led to think.
What about Universal Morals? Do you feel that these exist?
ReplyDeleteAlso to just say math is made up is a little vague. The philosophy of math is a ongoing debate and has been discussed for many generations. It sounds as if you hold belief in mathematical fictionalism. This theory has been widley rejected. " This is in part because of the requirement of strong fragments of second-order logic to carry out his reduction, and because the statement of conservativity seems to require quantification over abstract models or deductions." SRC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics
ReplyDeleteno, math is a tool we made up that is based on the things we have observed around us. Its undoubtable the most useful tool we have in science hands down. Im just saying that there is nothing "real" about math, its just a tool. Just like there is nothing "universal" about a hammer, its just a shape we made up that seems to be useful to us right now.
ReplyDeleteAs to universal morals, no. We have shown that you can change peoples morals using neuroscience. Morals are just our bodies reactions to external stimuli. Our brain reacts and squirts out the responding neurotransmitters. Sometimes people's brains have problems, and they enjoy being hurt, or hurting others. Religion calls these people evil, science has actually figured out what is wrong with them.
My main problem with religion is that it will always hide in the shadows of what science has yet to explain. Its only a matter of time until it goes away.
So your telling me that no absolute truth exists in your current world view?
ReplyDeleteassuming there should be constants, is an assumption. I try to assume nothing, and observe
ReplyDeleteSo your submitting that you in fact know nothing for sure and could be totally wrong about everything? Without the Biblical God you have no grounds to stand on for any argument, IMHO. Science can answer a lot...in fact you have already taught me much in this single thread. Despite all of that Science itself would not even exist if it wasn't for God. I pray that these words reach your heart and you repent so that you may receive the Truth of the Gospel of Christ. You can read the Bible 1000 times but Knowledge will not come to you until your repent. :)
ReplyDeletescience can and does answer all things we know with a certain level of certainty. You can claim to "know" things from the bible, or from your heart, or from god. But until you can repeat it, in a double blind environment. You do not know anything with any level of certainty other than your own "feelings".
ReplyDeleteIf science worked on feelings, none of todays drugs would be safe to take, and a large number of people would not be alive today.
Thats just it, within a certain level of certainty. Without unchanging laws than science is useless. If gravity is not a law of physics that is unchanging and universal than the whole of physics is based upon mere probability. Double blind or not its still fallible.
ReplyDeleteI not only have feelings, blessings, and spiritual experiences...I have history and many many other pieces of evidence that reaffirm my solid belief in Jesus Christ.
However as stated in the article I will not put the authority of God on trial by arguing evidence.
Again if you can't know anything for certain within your worldview, than why can't you submit to the Fact that the God is the supreme Creator?
spiffomatic64 ,
ReplyDelete>>Religion calls these people evil, science has actually figured out what is wrong with them.
Wrong? You are jumping out of your atheistic worldview to make such a claim. I am sure you know that you cannot get an "ought" from an "is". You have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. Like Razi Zacharias said that I highlight in one of my posts, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard, in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.
Brilliant post Michael. "He gets it! W00t!"
I dont know, means just that. I dont know, I dont know if there is a god with emotions, or if "god" just refers to the potential energy behind the big bang. Noone can know. Its up to those that claim to know, to provide evidence.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, all that is "known" is science, is only known with a certain level of certainty, thats how science works, we test it again and again, until we know a certain probability, if that probability is over a certain number, we accept it. This is how science works.
Wrong was the "wrong" word, you are correct dan. Nothing is wrong with even down syndrome children, they are just different, and compared to our societal expectancies, not-desirable. (not the people, the phenotype)
Different societies hold different values. its all relative, and all subjective.
Thanks for the praises D.A.N, I however owe it all to the Lord, Sye, and yourself :) I'm but a messenger trying to spread truths.
ReplyDelete>>No one can know. Its up to those that claim to know, to provide evidence.
ReplyDeleteDo you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
>>And yes, all that is "known" is science, is only known with a certain level of certainty, thats how science works, we test it again and again, until we know a certain probability, if that probability is over a certain number, we accept it. This is how science works.
Sye said this nugget on my blog once, yet he refused to take credit for it, "As far as science goes, science is dependent on the uniformity of nature, or no scientific prediction could be made. Problem is, no atheistic worldview can account for the uniformity of nature, the very foundation of science."
Craig also said something about Science that I loved.
Hedges pointed out, "That's what leads Hitler to try and breed humans and apes to try to create an oversized warrior or to send expeditions to Tibet to find a pure, Aryan race. I mean, that's not science. It's the cult of science, and I think the New Atheists also make that leap from science into the cult of science, and that's a problem."
The problem is the unbeliever has no justification for saying the future will be like the past. The Christians would say that we have a sovereign God who controls the universe who allows us to do science and such.
But I will not "labor" about this on this day.
I think its possible an omniscient being could reveal past present and future due to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace's_demon, Im kind of a quantum physics nerd and im not entire convinced against determinism.
ReplyDeleteMy fiance is a molecular biologist, and she does not believe nature is "uniform" in any way. Science is simply trying to understand nature as best we can, we make "laws" because we find certain rules are applied again and again, but even these laws are sometimes shown to be incorrect. Thats the beauty of science, its always correcting itself, and always gaining more knowledge :)
Im not sure what new atheists you have spoken to, but I've never met an atheist who was for eugenics... Sometimes I wonder if these "evil" atheists are made up by religious people who want a straw man to point at... :-\
Unbelievers have a ton of data to say "within a certain degree of certainty" that the future will be like the past. I have no 100% way to know that there will be gravity tomorrow morning, but based on the large amount of data myself and all other humans have recorded on it, it has a very good likelyhood that it will be there.
Religion does answer alot of questions, I am not argueing that religion makes people feel better who are unsettled by the unknown. There just is not enough data, or even any data to backup the claims it makes.
A nobel prize winning scientists who wrote the book on quantum electrodynamics said "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and of many things I don't know anything about, but I don't have to know an answer I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way it really is as far as I can tell possibly. It doesn't frighten me." -Richard Feynman
>>There just is not enough data, or even any data to backup the claims it makes.
ReplyDeleteGod has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have. You require more?
In other words, you know He exists and by crying "where is the evidence" is denying your own existence. Its absurd to reason with someone that is actually denying their own existence, all the while, demanding evidence for God.
You know what I hate about religious debates is that both sides try to use circular reasoning and end up not getting anywhere it makes no sense at all. Both sides have no proof either way either you believe or you don't why does it matter? Chances are neither will win the argument and you just get upset that the other isn't listening to your "world view". You can't change how they view the world they live in. So why do religious people of any sort think they have to convert people to the way they think?
ReplyDeleteIm not sure where your evidence for "god revealing himself to everyone". All knowledge claims (at least in science) have footnotes about the degree of certainty we have. Its all based on data, and probabilities.
ReplyDeleteIm not sure how asking for evidence for a claim denies my own existence. Im just a nerd who does not believe anything without enough evidence.
Im not trying to convince anyone of anything, I was just rebutting the original post of this thread. The original poster was stating that god invented "logic" based on universal constants and laws of physics. I simply stated that these "laws" are used as laws because they change very little and are useful to us. They do not attempt to state they are universal in any way, or if they do they are pretty presumptuous and I would take issue with them. Our sample size (time and size of universe we can observe) is a drop in the bucket of what is out there. And to make claims of "universal" based on that little data, is idiotic.
Of course you could say "god made all the other variations in physical laws and constants too" and there is no way to rebut that. Nor is there anyway to prove it.
Im just a nerd who requires proof via double blind studies with a p value less than 0.05
Romans 18-32
ReplyDelete18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 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.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them
The word of God is better than any double blind study. Hope this helps clarify his point.
@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteMark 16:15
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Michael while these are all very nice passages, I can quote the bible all day as well to prove every point I am making. The bible is sadly one of the most misquoted books that has ever existed. It was originally intended as a set of stories and morals to live life by, not take literally. For example: Do you eat shrimp? wear clothes with 2 types of material in them? (cotton polyester) if so then you are an abomination according to leviticus.
ReplyDeleteThe bible was "inspired" by god, not written by.
These passages talk alot of "clear revealings" that have never been documented or tested. If someone could prove the existence of god, they would win a nobel peace prize. If its as "obvious" to everyone as it says, we should be able to test this.
Also: the bible states earlier that to call another human a "fool" is an abomination.
I agree with Michael, if you TRUELY believe in the bible, and that every non-believer is going to hell for eternity, and you have the ability to at least try to save people... and dont... Thats the equivalent to not telling someone walking on train tracks that a train is about to hit them... but even worse, death is quick, eternity is not.
Again, I am just a nerd who requires data in order to believe something. If god is making himself so obvious to everyone, we should be able to measure this, and test it. (even if its just in our brain and nowhere else)
Unfortunately we have found an area of the brain that is responsible for "religious experiences" but its also the same area thats triggered by alot of psychoactive drugs.
Anon,
ReplyDelete>>You know what I hate about religious debates is that both sides try to use circular reasoning and end up not getting anywhere it makes no sense at all.
Never said it wasn’t circular, just that it is not viciously circular, as your "atheistic" worldview is. Intellectual honesty would force you to admit that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain. You, on the other hand, have no avenue to certainty.
>>Both sides have no proof either way either you believe or you don't why does it matter?
This is a perfect example of a knowledge claim for us to examine. You speak as if you are certain that "both sides have no proof". Are you?
>>You can't change how they view the world they live in.
Where I completely agree with this point, I am curious, how do you know this? That is why it takes a literal miracle to change that heart of stone, like I once had, to a heart of flesh. Even more evidence of God.
>>So why do religious people of any sort think they have to convert people to the way they think?
I reject the premise of that question. My argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands.
@spiffomatic64
ReplyDeleteOne thing, if there are no universal constants, could you perhaps tell me one thing that you know and how you are able to know it?
Thanks,
Sye
sye Its safer to assume that we dont know. In the case of "universal constants" we have recently observed that what we thought was constant, is not.
ReplyDeleteScience should make no observations whenever possible. If its for a theory, thats one thing. But to make universal claims.... is simply impossible to back up.
Its safer to assume that we just dont know.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt" - Richard Feynman
lol sorry
ReplyDelete"Science should make no observations whenever possible. If its for a theory, thats one thing. But to make universal claims.... is simply impossible to back up."
should be
Science should make no assumption whenever possible. If its for a theory, thats one thing. But to make universal claims.... is simply impossible to back up.
LOL we SHOULD be making zero assumptions, and as many observations as possible :)
If you couldnt tell, richard feynman is one of my favorite scientists :)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBCDTsgZomw