THE LAWS OF LOGIC PROVE THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW
When the atheist employs the laws of logic to try and refute Christianity, Christianity has already won! When the atheist assumes that which his worldview undermines and which Christianity supports, in his arguments against Christian theism, he has become his own worst enemy. Universal, unchanging, and immaterial entities like the laws of logic have a firm foundation in the context of Christian theism. Atheism cannot account for them. Atheism undermines them.
Atheism is naturally naturalistic. That is, atheists deny the existence of the supernatural. "I will only believe what my five senses tell me!" they insist. My response is: Which of your five senses told you that? The truth is that their empiricism (that they can only know what their senses tell them) cannot be empirically sensed, and so it doesn't meet their own criteria for reality and so is self-refuting. They insist: "No faith in the unseen and unsensed is necessary in order to explain everything in the universe!" I rebut, Which of your five senses told you that, that sense experience is all that is needed to explain things? If the atheist responds that his senses told him then he engages in circular reasoning. If he says that something other than his five senses told him then he refutes himself.
The fact is that atheists do not arrive at their naturalism as a conclusion, but rather, it is their unproven, unverified premise, which is easily falsifiable with transcendental scrutiny. Their empiricism (their theory of knowing) and their naturalism (their theory of reality) do not meet their own criteria for credibility, and so they are self-refuting. Transcendental inquiry leads to supernaturalism, but the atheist is unwilling to go where the evidence leads, because he has excluded that option before an examination of the evidence has even commenced!
The fact is that atheists, like all sane persons, assume things everyday that cannot be derived through sense experience. The laws of logic, for instance, are assumed in order for the atheist to process sense data and experience in the first place. In order for the atheist to get his arguments against Christianity off the ground, he assumes the veracity of the universal, invariant, and immaterial laws of logic. Can the atheist taste, smell, touch, see, or feel the "law of contradiction" (that A does not equal non-A), for instance? No. His worldview cannot make sense of what he does when he speaks his first sentence, "I am an atheist..." At that point, he's lost the debate, because in assuming the laws of logic ("law of identity" in this case), he himself has become one more piece of evidence that the Christian God is real, for without God, there can be no universal, invariant, immaterial laws of logic in the first place.
Atheists notoriously beg the question repeatedly when asked to reconcile their dependability on logic with their atheistic presuppositions. One atheist insisted, "The basis for logic, science, induction, and reasoning is that the material world exists and can be tested objectively." That's like saying, "The basis for logic is logic," or "The basis for objective science and the objective uniformity of nature and the objective laws of science is objectivity." The acknowledgement of the objectivity of the laws of logic presupposes the Christian worldview in the first place! To admit that objective testing is possible presupposes an attainable objective truth. To even state that the immaterial world exists as a fact presupposes the Christian worldview! The atheist can only be certain that the immaterial world exists because of his presupposing of that which only the Christian worldview can account for. The atheist cannot account for universal, invariant, immaterial laws at all. How can the atheist, consistent with his worldview, account for unchanging laws in a constantly changing universe? He can't. His worldview undermines what is he doing! Admission of objectivity in the laws of logic or the external world is an admission that the atheist is secretly reliant on the Christian Deity in order to argue against the Christian Deity.
David Hume said that there was no empirically verifiable basis for the trustworthiness of our senses in experiencing the external world - our senses are trusted beforehand, a priori; the dependability of our senses is presupposed. Hume went on to profess, consistent with his strict empiricism and his naturalism, that the existence of the external world had no basis therefore in reason or logic! He was reduced to such absurdity by sheer consistency with his false premise. Bertrand Russell tried to save the sciences from the skepticism of Hume, but ultimately was reduced to the same skepticism of the external world by consistency with his starting premises. Strict empiricism and strict logical positivism descends to absurdity if consistent, and they are inconsistent to admit the objectivity of the external world. It is completely arbitrary for the atheist to admit the existence of the universal, invariant, immaterial laws of logic and yet reject the existence of the eternal, unchanging, immaterial God Almighty. Most do admit the reality of the external world and the laws of logic, however, they cannot come to this conclusion apart from presupposing God in their reason and logic, in their scientific induction, and in their objective data that presupposes objective truth. The atheist presupposes that which strict empiricism and naturalism refutes in order to make his case against the Christian God.
Some atheists argue that the laws of logic are conventions agreed upon by men, that they are not univeral, invariant, and immaterial. However, if this were true, then that democratic consensus who agreed to make illogic "logical" by, for instance, determining contradictory statements to have equal truth value, or by considering falsified data to be acceptable for scientific studies, would be just as logical as those who held these basic laws of logic to be dependable. This cannot be so. Laws are not conventions or human creations, whether they are the laws of logic or laws of science. Gravity existed before Newton studied and documented it just as the laws of logic existed before the Greeks wrote textbooks on logic. Logicians study logic, just like biologists study biological organisms, but logicians did not create logic any more than biologists created biological organisms. "A" does not equal "non-A" even if there are no humans around to document it, even if whole world of disagrees or cannot comprehend the proposition.
If the laws of logic were a human convention, then I can just start a new convention and reject the old, can't I? Okay, I'm starting a new convention: "Atheists are Christians! There! That's now logical and to say atheists are non-Christians is heretofore illogical!" Now, would you accept that as logical if I happened to get a country of imbeciles to agree with me? No, a logical atheist would not. The point is plain: laws of logic are universal, invariant, immaterial rules by which we judge all propositions and data. They are transcendent in origin and quality, because they reflect the laws by which God's own intellect and actions are governed and by which those made in His image should be governed. He is the necessary precondition to make sense of the laws of logic, as well as induction, morality, and reality in general. Furthermore, no sane person can live like logic is merely conventional. Debate itself presupposes that there are universal and invariant laws of logic. When each debate opponent tries to convince others of their view, they presuppose the attainability of objective truth through universal laws of logic and deny determinism. Even if they deny the freedom of man's will in theory, the debater in practice admits that men have free wills and can be intellectually persuaded to disregard certain views to adopt others. So atheists who debate Christians are their own worst enemies. In agreeing to debate, they have lost the debate.
Some have argued that the laws of logic are simply descriptive of how our minds evolved. However, the laws of logic do not describe how we think so much as it describes how we should think. If logic was primarily descriptive as they propose, then the philosopher who begged the question would be just as "logical" as the one who did not, the mathematician who thought that the shortest distance between two points was an arc would be just as "logical" as the one who thought it was a straight line, the scientist who believed that the sun did not exist would be just as "logical" as the one who did. Disagree with it in theory if you like but you cannot live like that, Mr. Atheist - your theory is contrary to universal human experience. Logic is an universal, invariant, immaterial entity which is presupposed, that is, embraced as true beforehand, in all of our studies - in calculus, geometry, astronomy, grammar, quantum physics, philosophy, epistemology, anthropology, all the way to the simple things of life like baking bread and telling your wife that you're going to the pharmacy to pick up your Haldol prescription. J The laws of logic are like mathematics: objective and external to self. They are not dependent on a democratic consensus or vote. General agreement that the sun rotates around the earth does not make it true any more than philosophers who beg the question and vote that they are logical are really being logical. A tree is not a bird even if no humans are around to document it. The laws of logic are prescriptive in philosophy as well as all of the sciences and literature, as all men intuitively know and demonstrate for us when the scientist instructs and corrects the ignorant, or when the philosopher instructs and corrects those that beg the question, or when the mathematician instructs and corrects the child who thinks 1 + 1 = 3, or when you try to correct the bad arguments of the theist.
Only the Christian worldview can account for immaterial laws of logic, because the universe was made by God who governs logically and expects and empowers intelligent creatures to learn about his universe in a reasonable fashion and govern themselves logically. So in order for you to get your arguments off the ground, Mr. Atheist, you have to presuppose God, and your guilt for resisting the Christian truth that you cannot completely abandon in practice only accumulates until the revelation of God's wrath on you on the
Saturday, February 9, 2008
The Transcendental Refutation of Atheism
I found this article from Patrick Johnston www.wherethetruthhurts.org
The Christian God can be proven by the impossibility of the contrary. That is, reject the Christian God and no sense can be made out of moral obligation, moral indignation, the laws of logic, or induction, entities that are a part of the lives of all sane, intelligent human beings. Only Christianity as delineated in God's self-attesting revelation, the Holy Bible, provides the framework in which human experience is intelligible. Atheism cannot make sense of anything, even the very arguments they bring forth to criticize the Christian faith! The atheist need only be open-minded, tender-hearted, and be willing to go wherever the evidence leads in order to brave the paradigm shift that will lead to discovery of the truth.
MORAL OBLIGATION AND MORAL INDIGNATION AS PROOF FOR THE CHRISTIAN
The existence of moral obligation and moral indignation cannot be made intelligible alienated from the existence of the Christian God. An objective morality presupposes God as the founder of that law of good. In the Christian worldview, the moral law is an idea within the divine reason of the eternal God, an idea that behavior that best affects the happiness of being is morally obligatory. This moral law, summed up in love, is the standard by which God voluntarily governs Himself and impresses as obligatory upon the minds of those sentient beings He has created.
The atheist who defends the myth of relative morality proposes his version of moral obligation just as vigorous as does the Christian theist proposes his. "No one has a right to force his moral code on others." "Every one has the right to freedom of thought and opinion." "Tolerance of alternative lifestyles is virtuous." "The Catholic priests are wrong to molest little boys." "Christian churches were wrong to defend slavery in the American colonies." "Criminals shouldn't be punished, but treated with compassion." "Women should have the right to choose to get an abortion." "People shouldn't kill abortionists." "Society should care for the poor." "No one should discriminate against another because of his sex, race, or sexual orientation." The moral commandments of the atheists go on and on, and don't you think for a moment that they are any less dogmatic about their moral code than the Christian theist is about the Bible's.
You can give your opinion as to how you think men should live, Mr. Atheist, but that's all it is, consistent with your worldview, it's your opinion. The question is, WHY should men live as you say? Because of pragmatic concerns? Because it'll go better for them in this life if they do? Well, what if they disagree? Is it thereafter good for them to do as they wish without regard to their fellow man because, after all, there is no such thing as right and wrong, there is no future day of reckoning, and they think it's better for them in this life to do as they please rather than as you please? All you can do, atheist, is disagree, but you cannot, consistent with your worldview, have moral confidence in condemning immoral behavior. Atheists, to condemn immorality, must borrow the worldview they reject, the Christian worldview, without which moral indignation makes no sense.
Moreover, there's the commonly used "problem of evil" argument employed to refute the concept of a God: "If God is all-powerful and all-good, how can evil exist in the world? Either He's not all-powerful and couldn't prevent it or else He's not all-good and caused it or allowed it when He had the power to prevent it - or, there is no God!" The fatal flaw in the "problem of evil" argument is that it assumes to be true what can only be true in the Christian worldview, the existence of evil! When the atheist rails against the evils committed by professing Christians in the Inquisitions or the Crusades or when they bring up the pedophilia crisis within the Catholic priesthood, for instance, in order to refute Christianity, they've lost the debate. For within the atheist universe, there is no problem of evil because there is no moral evil. (There is a problem of evil in the theist universe, but not the atheist universe. The problem is resolved by faith: God has a reason for everything that He causes or allows that is consistent with His love.) The atheist who uses the "problem of evil" argument is like the philosopher who debates whether he exists or not, all the while presupposing his existence in order to debate in the first place. He's like the philosopher who debates whether air exists or not - imagine it! - profound, articulate arguments as to whether or not air really exist or not, all the while both debaters are breathing air as they huff and puff their arguments. They atheist presupposes the very God he fights against when he brings forth his arguments to refute His existence!
When the atheist assumes the reality of evil or when they express moral indignation, they undermine their own profession and confirm the Christian worldview. After all, how can the atheist, consistent with his worldview, condemn immoral behavior? I know how he can do it inconsistently, that is, by assuming the existence of the Christian God, but how can he do it and be consistent with his profession? The Nazi who thinks that blacks and Jews are a little bit further down the evolutionary tree and should be abused for the white man's benefit in accordance with Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest - what atheist can condemn him and be consistent with his atheistic profession that all morality is personal and subjective? That's his own personal morality and who are you to enforce your moral code down his throat? Who are you, consistent with your worldview, to tell him that he is wrong to be racist and that he should not be a racist? Oh, you can give your opinion, but annexed to your opinion is that your opinion is your opinion and his opinion is his opinion and no one has a right to say what's right and wrong for anybody else but himself. Atheism is a house built on sand when it comes to providing a refuge for the discriminated. Christianity, however, provides the moral foundation to condemn judging others according to involuntary attributes.
The atheist cannot, consistent with his worldview, assert that kidnapping and raping little five-year-old girls is wrong. They can give their opinion that it is wrong. They can judge it to be illegal in our society. But they cannot, consistent with their worldview, call it a moral evil. In the society that has not outlawed pedophilia, they cannot provide a condemnation of it, and even in our society, they cannot, consistent with their worldview, condemn them whose personal preference is to break the law by raping five-year-old girls. Atheists must assume that which they are trying to disprove in order to assume the reality of moral evil. Thankfully, like all sane men, many atheists have moral indignation and roundly condemn the man in California who kidnapped a five-year old girl in early 2002 and raped her before killing her. They condemn the Nazi Holocaust, and the kidnapping and enslavement of Africans by the colonials, the falsification of data in scientific studies, the 9/11 terrorist attacks against innocent Americans. However, when they criticize immoral behavior without regard to the personal preference of the transgressor, or whether these acts were legal or illegal in that transgressor's culture, or the way in which the transgressor was raised, or the democratic consensus of the day, they have presupposed objective morality (they've also assumed true the universal, invariant, and immaterial laws of logic and absolute truth, but more on that later). The atheistic worldview cannot provide the preconditions necessary to confidently condemn these deeds, so when you condemn these deeds, Mr. Atheist, you presuppose Christian Deity, which alone provides the preconditions to make intelligible the testimony of reason and conscience.
Many atheists propose utilitarianism as the foundation of moral obligation. Utilitarianism is the theory that all actions are to be judged by their consequences; "The greatest happiness of the greatest number" is the sole criterion for moral choice. The utilitarian way of judging right from wrong has its place - indeed, it is Biblical to consider the consequences of your actions before you do it! However, by itself, it is easy to see how this formula for morality falls short. But my primary refutation of it is aptly demonstrated with this question: WHY is man obligated to pursue the course of action that takes consequences into account or produces the greatest happiness? Because you think he should, Mr. Atheist? And what of the man who thinks that he should pursue "negative outcomes", Mr. Atheist? Who are you to disagree with him? What of the hedonist who thinks the happiness diminished in his victims' lives is more than offset by the happiness that murdering and raping others brings to him? What of the man who opines that producing the greatest misery is his moral obligation? On what basis would you condemn these? Oh, that's right, you'd condemn them based upon your opinion. It's my opinion that chocolate is better than vanilla ice cream, but I suspect that you as well as I would refute a child molester with much greater enthusiasm than you would in arguing with him about which flavor of ice cream is better. No, Mr. Atheist, you can't live like moral obligation is just your opinion. You're not programmed that way. In your instinctive condemnation of malicious behavior and your praise of benevolent behavior without regard to utilitarian concerns or the personal moral code of the offender, you show that you live like moral obligation is objective, not subjective. In your affirmation of moral obligation and your practice of moral indignation, you affirm the Christian God, without which moral obligation and indignation would not comport with reality.
I have heard atheists argue that moral obligation is simply a description of how we evolved. But that cannot be so. It is not a description of how we act because we universally admit violation of it! Rather, it is prescriptive: it does not describe a certain code of conduct, but rather, prescribes a code of conduct. Moral obligation, like the laws of logic, are prescriptive and not simply descriptive. Therefore, moral obligation is objective and not simply subjective.
Lest I be misunderstood, let me freely admit that subjectivity is an attribute of the moral law - God holds us accountable for what we know in accordance with our nature and relations. The conscience is not totally developed at birth. As the intelligence develops, the sentient being becomes aware of how he wants to be treated and what kind of behavior results in happiness. In this way, he comes to grip with his moral obligation to treat his neighbors and His Creator with benevolence so as to promote happiness. Society and parental upbringing play important roles in the development of the conscience, but no sane person is justified for wrongdoing because of an immoral society or wicked parents. The environment is an influence upon us but not a cause. We have free wills and have the power of contrary choice in every temptation, and this is presupposed in all criminal justice systems just as it is presupposed in debate. The moral law is external to self, objective, and universal inasmuch that it respects the motive and intent of the heart. All men know that malevolent behavior is always objectively bad and wrong and benevolent behavior is always objectively good and right. Outward behavior may differ, but moral obligation respects outward behavior only indirectly. Moral obligation directly respects a state of heart. Love is the sum of all of God's law. No man will be able to plead ignorance on Judgment Day, because he is fully aware of the state of heart that moral obligation impresses upon him. All sane men know all they need to know to be obligated to love God and their neighbors as themselves.
The atheist rebuts the notion that morality is objective with evidence of differing codes of morality in different nations and cultures. First of all, this is no refutation of Christianity because Christianity teaches that all have sinned against this objective law of good and therefore we would expect to find instances where sin was justified and legalized. We would expect to find similarities in the moral codes of different societies as well as differences, because there is one Creator who impressed His law on our hearts and minds and we have all sinned against Him. More or less, men's laws and institutions generally express this supreme, universal law of good just as they universally confess their failure to comply with moral obligation.
Furthermore, this rebuttal assumes that all codes of morality are morally equal, and this is something that even the decent atheist, as morally depraved as he might be, cannot accept. Is the clitorectomies of little girls, the execution of abortionists and atheists and gays, and the discrimination of women in Arab nations morally equivalent to the traditions of the west in these matters? Is the slavery of non-Arabs in Arabic societies morally equivalent to the west's respect for human rights? Was the Aztecs' practice of skinning a virgin and putting her hide on the high priest to wear as a robe morally equivalent to western traditions of the fair treatment of women? Were the Inquisitions in which Wiccans were burned at the stake morally acceptable, Mr. Atheist? The atheist freely expresses his dogma here - "Of course not!..." Then typically will come a long string of harsh criticisms of the evils of religious totalitarianism. In so doing, the atheist's worldview is contradicted and the Christian God is proven, for without Him moral indignation is nonsensical.
Our discussion about morality should make it ever so clear to the reader that the concept of a Supreme Lawgiver is CRITICAL in order to make human experience and conscience's testimony intelligible. God's laws are given to us for our good, and those that break God's laws will be damned for it. Though they've been deceived by their society or parents to think that their malicious behavior was acceptable, though they escape conviction and punishment in this life, though it be legal in the society in which they live, God will judge them on Judgment Day according to HIS law. He has revealed this law to all men through conscience and intelligence and the created order, and so all men are without excuse. Furthermore, this law is confirmed in the written word through the Holy Bible.
The Christian God can be proved by the impossibility of the contrary. The Christian worldview uniquely provides an explanation for the universal laws of morality, laws that all men universally assume and yet no other worldview can adequately metaphysically support. God is supremely intelligent and eternally complicit with his own law of love, and He impresses His laws upon the heart and mind of beings He has created in His image. The sane atheist cannot escape the reality of God anymore than he can speak or breathe. Indeed, the existence of God is the sine qua non of reality.
The Christian God can be proven by the impossibility of the contrary. That is, reject the Christian God and no sense can be made out of moral obligation, moral indignation, the laws of logic, or induction, entities that are a part of the lives of all sane, intelligent human beings. Only Christianity as delineated in God's self-attesting revelation, the Holy Bible, provides the framework in which human experience is intelligible. Atheism cannot make sense of anything, even the very arguments they bring forth to criticize the Christian faith! The atheist need only be open-minded, tender-hearted, and be willing to go wherever the evidence leads in order to brave the paradigm shift that will lead to discovery of the truth.
MORAL OBLIGATION AND MORAL INDIGNATION AS PROOF FOR THE CHRISTIAN
The existence of moral obligation and moral indignation cannot be made intelligible alienated from the existence of the Christian God. An objective morality presupposes God as the founder of that law of good. In the Christian worldview, the moral law is an idea within the divine reason of the eternal God, an idea that behavior that best affects the happiness of being is morally obligatory. This moral law, summed up in love, is the standard by which God voluntarily governs Himself and impresses as obligatory upon the minds of those sentient beings He has created.
The atheist who defends the myth of relative morality proposes his version of moral obligation just as vigorous as does the Christian theist proposes his. "No one has a right to force his moral code on others." "Every one has the right to freedom of thought and opinion." "Tolerance of alternative lifestyles is virtuous." "The Catholic priests are wrong to molest little boys." "Christian churches were wrong to defend slavery in the American colonies." "Criminals shouldn't be punished, but treated with compassion." "Women should have the right to choose to get an abortion." "People shouldn't kill abortionists." "Society should care for the poor." "No one should discriminate against another because of his sex, race, or sexual orientation." The moral commandments of the atheists go on and on, and don't you think for a moment that they are any less dogmatic about their moral code than the Christian theist is about the Bible's.
You can give your opinion as to how you think men should live, Mr. Atheist, but that's all it is, consistent with your worldview, it's your opinion. The question is, WHY should men live as you say? Because of pragmatic concerns? Because it'll go better for them in this life if they do? Well, what if they disagree? Is it thereafter good for them to do as they wish without regard to their fellow man because, after all, there is no such thing as right and wrong, there is no future day of reckoning, and they think it's better for them in this life to do as they please rather than as you please? All you can do, atheist, is disagree, but you cannot, consistent with your worldview, have moral confidence in condemning immoral behavior. Atheists, to condemn immorality, must borrow the worldview they reject, the Christian worldview, without which moral indignation makes no sense.
Moreover, there's the commonly used "problem of evil" argument employed to refute the concept of a God: "If God is all-powerful and all-good, how can evil exist in the world? Either He's not all-powerful and couldn't prevent it or else He's not all-good and caused it or allowed it when He had the power to prevent it - or, there is no God!" The fatal flaw in the "problem of evil" argument is that it assumes to be true what can only be true in the Christian worldview, the existence of evil! When the atheist rails against the evils committed by professing Christians in the Inquisitions or the Crusades or when they bring up the pedophilia crisis within the Catholic priesthood, for instance, in order to refute Christianity, they've lost the debate. For within the atheist universe, there is no problem of evil because there is no moral evil. (There is a problem of evil in the theist universe, but not the atheist universe. The problem is resolved by faith: God has a reason for everything that He causes or allows that is consistent with His love.) The atheist who uses the "problem of evil" argument is like the philosopher who debates whether he exists or not, all the while presupposing his existence in order to debate in the first place. He's like the philosopher who debates whether air exists or not - imagine it! - profound, articulate arguments as to whether or not air really exist or not, all the while both debaters are breathing air as they huff and puff their arguments. They atheist presupposes the very God he fights against when he brings forth his arguments to refute His existence!
When the atheist assumes the reality of evil or when they express moral indignation, they undermine their own profession and confirm the Christian worldview. After all, how can the atheist, consistent with his worldview, condemn immoral behavior? I know how he can do it inconsistently, that is, by assuming the existence of the Christian God, but how can he do it and be consistent with his profession? The Nazi who thinks that blacks and Jews are a little bit further down the evolutionary tree and should be abused for the white man's benefit in accordance with Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest - what atheist can condemn him and be consistent with his atheistic profession that all morality is personal and subjective? That's his own personal morality and who are you to enforce your moral code down his throat? Who are you, consistent with your worldview, to tell him that he is wrong to be racist and that he should not be a racist? Oh, you can give your opinion, but annexed to your opinion is that your opinion is your opinion and his opinion is his opinion and no one has a right to say what's right and wrong for anybody else but himself. Atheism is a house built on sand when it comes to providing a refuge for the discriminated. Christianity, however, provides the moral foundation to condemn judging others according to involuntary attributes.
The atheist cannot, consistent with his worldview, assert that kidnapping and raping little five-year-old girls is wrong. They can give their opinion that it is wrong. They can judge it to be illegal in our society. But they cannot, consistent with their worldview, call it a moral evil. In the society that has not outlawed pedophilia, they cannot provide a condemnation of it, and even in our society, they cannot, consistent with their worldview, condemn them whose personal preference is to break the law by raping five-year-old girls. Atheists must assume that which they are trying to disprove in order to assume the reality of moral evil. Thankfully, like all sane men, many atheists have moral indignation and roundly condemn the man in California who kidnapped a five-year old girl in early 2002 and raped her before killing her. They condemn the Nazi Holocaust, and the kidnapping and enslavement of Africans by the colonials, the falsification of data in scientific studies, the 9/11 terrorist attacks against innocent Americans. However, when they criticize immoral behavior without regard to the personal preference of the transgressor, or whether these acts were legal or illegal in that transgressor's culture, or the way in which the transgressor was raised, or the democratic consensus of the day, they have presupposed objective morality (they've also assumed true the universal, invariant, and immaterial laws of logic and absolute truth, but more on that later). The atheistic worldview cannot provide the preconditions necessary to confidently condemn these deeds, so when you condemn these deeds, Mr. Atheist, you presuppose Christian Deity, which alone provides the preconditions to make intelligible the testimony of reason and conscience.
Many atheists propose utilitarianism as the foundation of moral obligation. Utilitarianism is the theory that all actions are to be judged by their consequences; "The greatest happiness of the greatest number" is the sole criterion for moral choice. The utilitarian way of judging right from wrong has its place - indeed, it is Biblical to consider the consequences of your actions before you do it! However, by itself, it is easy to see how this formula for morality falls short. But my primary refutation of it is aptly demonstrated with this question: WHY is man obligated to pursue the course of action that takes consequences into account or produces the greatest happiness? Because you think he should, Mr. Atheist? And what of the man who thinks that he should pursue "negative outcomes", Mr. Atheist? Who are you to disagree with him? What of the hedonist who thinks the happiness diminished in his victims' lives is more than offset by the happiness that murdering and raping others brings to him? What of the man who opines that producing the greatest misery is his moral obligation? On what basis would you condemn these? Oh, that's right, you'd condemn them based upon your opinion. It's my opinion that chocolate is better than vanilla ice cream, but I suspect that you as well as I would refute a child molester with much greater enthusiasm than you would in arguing with him about which flavor of ice cream is better. No, Mr. Atheist, you can't live like moral obligation is just your opinion. You're not programmed that way. In your instinctive condemnation of malicious behavior and your praise of benevolent behavior without regard to utilitarian concerns or the personal moral code of the offender, you show that you live like moral obligation is objective, not subjective. In your affirmation of moral obligation and your practice of moral indignation, you affirm the Christian God, without which moral obligation and indignation would not comport with reality.
I have heard atheists argue that moral obligation is simply a description of how we evolved. But that cannot be so. It is not a description of how we act because we universally admit violation of it! Rather, it is prescriptive: it does not describe a certain code of conduct, but rather, prescribes a code of conduct. Moral obligation, like the laws of logic, are prescriptive and not simply descriptive. Therefore, moral obligation is objective and not simply subjective.
Lest I be misunderstood, let me freely admit that subjectivity is an attribute of the moral law - God holds us accountable for what we know in accordance with our nature and relations. The conscience is not totally developed at birth. As the intelligence develops, the sentient being becomes aware of how he wants to be treated and what kind of behavior results in happiness. In this way, he comes to grip with his moral obligation to treat his neighbors and His Creator with benevolence so as to promote happiness. Society and parental upbringing play important roles in the development of the conscience, but no sane person is justified for wrongdoing because of an immoral society or wicked parents. The environment is an influence upon us but not a cause. We have free wills and have the power of contrary choice in every temptation, and this is presupposed in all criminal justice systems just as it is presupposed in debate. The moral law is external to self, objective, and universal inasmuch that it respects the motive and intent of the heart. All men know that malevolent behavior is always objectively bad and wrong and benevolent behavior is always objectively good and right. Outward behavior may differ, but moral obligation respects outward behavior only indirectly. Moral obligation directly respects a state of heart. Love is the sum of all of God's law. No man will be able to plead ignorance on Judgment Day, because he is fully aware of the state of heart that moral obligation impresses upon him. All sane men know all they need to know to be obligated to love God and their neighbors as themselves.
The atheist rebuts the notion that morality is objective with evidence of differing codes of morality in different nations and cultures. First of all, this is no refutation of Christianity because Christianity teaches that all have sinned against this objective law of good and therefore we would expect to find instances where sin was justified and legalized. We would expect to find similarities in the moral codes of different societies as well as differences, because there is one Creator who impressed His law on our hearts and minds and we have all sinned against Him. More or less, men's laws and institutions generally express this supreme, universal law of good just as they universally confess their failure to comply with moral obligation.
Furthermore, this rebuttal assumes that all codes of morality are morally equal, and this is something that even the decent atheist, as morally depraved as he might be, cannot accept. Is the clitorectomies of little girls, the execution of abortionists and atheists and gays, and the discrimination of women in Arab nations morally equivalent to the traditions of the west in these matters? Is the slavery of non-Arabs in Arabic societies morally equivalent to the west's respect for human rights? Was the Aztecs' practice of skinning a virgin and putting her hide on the high priest to wear as a robe morally equivalent to western traditions of the fair treatment of women? Were the Inquisitions in which Wiccans were burned at the stake morally acceptable, Mr. Atheist? The atheist freely expresses his dogma here - "Of course not!..." Then typically will come a long string of harsh criticisms of the evils of religious totalitarianism. In so doing, the atheist's worldview is contradicted and the Christian God is proven, for without Him moral indignation is nonsensical.
Our discussion about morality should make it ever so clear to the reader that the concept of a Supreme Lawgiver is CRITICAL in order to make human experience and conscience's testimony intelligible. God's laws are given to us for our good, and those that break God's laws will be damned for it. Though they've been deceived by their society or parents to think that their malicious behavior was acceptable, though they escape conviction and punishment in this life, though it be legal in the society in which they live, God will judge them on Judgment Day according to HIS law. He has revealed this law to all men through conscience and intelligence and the created order, and so all men are without excuse. Furthermore, this law is confirmed in the written word through the Holy Bible.
The Christian God can be proved by the impossibility of the contrary. The Christian worldview uniquely provides an explanation for the universal laws of morality, laws that all men universally assume and yet no other worldview can adequately metaphysically support. God is supremely intelligent and eternally complicit with his own law of love, and He impresses His laws upon the heart and mind of beings He has created in His image. The sane atheist cannot escape the reality of God anymore than he can speak or breathe. Indeed, the existence of God is the sine qua non of reality.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
The Transcendental Method
When it comes to defending the faith, one must start off with the transcendental method.
If God is eternal, transcendent and has all knowledge then our defense for his existence should be in his transcendence. Because he is beyond the universe and is the source of the creation we must seek an answer beyond the universe. God has all knowledge, and it is in his attributes that we can explain all reality. His existence is the pre-condition that explains all things. If God is the source of all knowledge then he is the starting point of our defense.
Step 1
To start with we presuppose God’s existence. His existence establishes that the world has an interpretation and is meaningful. You simple can not start anywhere else. Some people try and use deductive or inductive arguments that lead to proving God’s existence but this is wrong, as one must establish the possibility that argument’s can be valid first.
It is wrong to start off with the cosmological argument or the teleological argument.
The truth of God’s existence is not a deductive consequence of the premise of the argument, but rather a metaphysical and logical ground for the possibility of the premise’s themselves.
One must start off with God to make sense of any argument because for an argument to be true or false it needs to be judged against an absolute standard of truth. This standard is God’s eternal interpretation of all reality. For a claim of knowledge to be true it must correspond to God’s interpretation of the world. Without God there is no meaning to reality so know arguments about the truth of reality can be valid. For the unbeliever his arguments that God does not exist are meaningless unless God does exist to establish his statements. Either way one can’t get away from God’s piercing revelation. To try and deny God rationally is to affirm God’s existence, Because rationality presupposes God.
The unbeliever’s arguments may be rational but wrong. There is a clear difference between rational persuasion, which is understandable and objective Truth, which cannot be false (God’s interpretation of his creation).
Step 2
When debating the unbeliever push him to justify how he knows his arguments against God are true or even how he knows any of his beliefs to be true. His answer will probable be that there are self evident truths gained by reasoning. The problem with this answer is that in an impersonal chance run universes how can reason come up with self-evident truths of reality if reality has no interpretation as a whole. To have self evident truth is to know God, which is something the unbeliever will suppress at all costs. To know any fact in the universe is to presuppose that a fact is part of a total unit of truth. This Ultimate unit of truth is found in God who contains all-knowledge.
Step 3
The transcendental method basically proves that without God the unbeliever cannot prove anything at all. To justify the use of Reason, Logic, Arguments, our experiences and morality we need a rational transcendental interpretation. An impersonal Chance universe will always make these experiences irrational, as they are experienced in an irrational environment. If these attributes are said to be part of the whole, a cause from evolution, then chance has made them function by chance.
Step 4
Because we are created in Gods image we have knowledge in our minds that has been implanted from God. Remembering that our knowledge is on a finite level and we do not have access to absolute comprehension of all knowledge. But because our knowledge has its source in God’s we are covenant creatures. This means that all knowledge is ethical and requires that we use our reasoning tools faithfully.
When one becomes a covenant breaker and suppresses the knowledge of God in his thinking he becomes unfaithful in his reasoning. Once you brake the ethical covenant of knowledge about God, you are left with the irrational claims of Atheism.
Non-intelligence produces intelligence
The Rational interprets the impersonal or irrational world
That chance produces design and order
That good and evil exists in a random universe with no interpretation or standard
That truth exists in a meaningless world.
The Transcendental method shows that God is the necessary condition for all these things to exist.
If God is eternal, transcendent and has all knowledge then our defense for his existence should be in his transcendence. Because he is beyond the universe and is the source of the creation we must seek an answer beyond the universe. God has all knowledge, and it is in his attributes that we can explain all reality. His existence is the pre-condition that explains all things. If God is the source of all knowledge then he is the starting point of our defense.
Step 1
To start with we presuppose God’s existence. His existence establishes that the world has an interpretation and is meaningful. You simple can not start anywhere else. Some people try and use deductive or inductive arguments that lead to proving God’s existence but this is wrong, as one must establish the possibility that argument’s can be valid first.
It is wrong to start off with the cosmological argument or the teleological argument.
The truth of God’s existence is not a deductive consequence of the premise of the argument, but rather a metaphysical and logical ground for the possibility of the premise’s themselves.
One must start off with God to make sense of any argument because for an argument to be true or false it needs to be judged against an absolute standard of truth. This standard is God’s eternal interpretation of all reality. For a claim of knowledge to be true it must correspond to God’s interpretation of the world. Without God there is no meaning to reality so know arguments about the truth of reality can be valid. For the unbeliever his arguments that God does not exist are meaningless unless God does exist to establish his statements. Either way one can’t get away from God’s piercing revelation. To try and deny God rationally is to affirm God’s existence, Because rationality presupposes God.
The unbeliever’s arguments may be rational but wrong. There is a clear difference between rational persuasion, which is understandable and objective Truth, which cannot be false (God’s interpretation of his creation).
Step 2
When debating the unbeliever push him to justify how he knows his arguments against God are true or even how he knows any of his beliefs to be true. His answer will probable be that there are self evident truths gained by reasoning. The problem with this answer is that in an impersonal chance run universes how can reason come up with self-evident truths of reality if reality has no interpretation as a whole. To have self evident truth is to know God, which is something the unbeliever will suppress at all costs. To know any fact in the universe is to presuppose that a fact is part of a total unit of truth. This Ultimate unit of truth is found in God who contains all-knowledge.
Step 3
The transcendental method basically proves that without God the unbeliever cannot prove anything at all. To justify the use of Reason, Logic, Arguments, our experiences and morality we need a rational transcendental interpretation. An impersonal Chance universe will always make these experiences irrational, as they are experienced in an irrational environment. If these attributes are said to be part of the whole, a cause from evolution, then chance has made them function by chance.
Step 4
Because we are created in Gods image we have knowledge in our minds that has been implanted from God. Remembering that our knowledge is on a finite level and we do not have access to absolute comprehension of all knowledge. But because our knowledge has its source in God’s we are covenant creatures. This means that all knowledge is ethical and requires that we use our reasoning tools faithfully.
When one becomes a covenant breaker and suppresses the knowledge of God in his thinking he becomes unfaithful in his reasoning. Once you brake the ethical covenant of knowledge about God, you are left with the irrational claims of Atheism.
Non-intelligence produces intelligence
The Rational interprets the impersonal or irrational world
That chance produces design and order
That good and evil exists in a random universe with no interpretation or standard
That truth exists in a meaningless world.
The Transcendental method shows that God is the necessary condition for all these things to exist.
Monday, February 4, 2008
What Can and Cannot be?
For the Unbeliever what Can and cannot be true about reality is not an answer that they can know.
The Unbeliever is not in a position to tell us what can or cannot be when he trys to reject our defense of the Faith.
In a chance universe the Atheist can not even trust his senses of experience as he is just imposing his experiences as absolute truth. Truth implies a fixed universe with laws and a rational interpretation to make all reality a system of truth, not a random experience in a chance universe of atoms in motion.
For the unbeliever to say what can and cannot be would imply that he is judging his claims against a fixed interpreation of reality (God's). Without that fixed interpretation what has the unbeliever got to reference his claims against.
He is basicly (if his worldview was true) just swiping the world with meaningless statements that have no enviroment to make sense in.
Only in a universe that has a fixed interpreation to it as a whole can one have claims of what can and cannot be true about it. This interpreation is God's rational mind who has interpreted his whole creation.
The Unbeliever is not in a position to tell us what can or cannot be when he trys to reject our defense of the Faith.
In a chance universe the Atheist can not even trust his senses of experience as he is just imposing his experiences as absolute truth. Truth implies a fixed universe with laws and a rational interpretation to make all reality a system of truth, not a random experience in a chance universe of atoms in motion.
For the unbeliever to say what can and cannot be would imply that he is judging his claims against a fixed interpreation of reality (God's). Without that fixed interpretation what has the unbeliever got to reference his claims against.
He is basicly (if his worldview was true) just swiping the world with meaningless statements that have no enviroment to make sense in.
Only in a universe that has a fixed interpreation to it as a whole can one have claims of what can and cannot be true about it. This interpreation is God's rational mind who has interpreted his whole creation.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Impersonal Religions
I have shown in the last section, the failure of secular thought to ground objective true knowledge. In this section I will demonstrate the irrationalism of the major other religions. As I have already dealt with Islam I will not cover it here. A religion or worldview that can not give a foundation for rationality is not a view that can claim any truths. If it cannot explain the existence of meaning it is irrational and meaningless.
As I have already shown if your ultimate source of reality is irrational and impersonal then at the finite level it will also be irrational. As irrationalism can not produce the rational or meaning. If it could there would be no way of distinguishing them from each other. If the universe is ultimately meaningless, then every single atom and object is meaningless. I will now demonstrate the impersonal religions that exist and reduce them to irrationalism.
The worldview of Pantheism (The universe is God) is impersonal. There is no mind in it or behind it. God is basically an impersonal force throughout the universe.
Religions that hold this view include Hinduism, and Taoism and the New Age.
Some may object and say that in Hinduism there is a trinity Brahma, Vishna, and
Siva. But on a closer examination there is no trinity as the Hindu gods are three gods, not one God in three persons. In other views the god of Hinduism is three different manifestations of the same god, which is also not the trinity. We must remember the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity. For without the Trinity, there cannot be an absolute rational personal communicating God of love. If you are lost, re-read it!
Finite godism is the view that god is not eternal and that he came into existence.
This means that "His" existence is based on irrational blind chance. This god’s foundation for his intelligence is the impersonal world of matter.
The Worldview of Polytheism is almost like the above, but here there are many finite gods, some stronger than others, but their cause for their existence is the same. Their ultimate environment is impersonal and irrational, leaving them as meaningless objects. The religions, which hold to this worldview, include Animism, some forms of Hinduism, Greek, Rome and Egypt religions and Mormonism.
The next view is Deism, this is a god who creates the world like a machine and leaves it. He has no relationship with it. He may be eternal, but no one can know him or know anything about him, as he does not reveal himself. We could not even know if there was a Deism god because it is beyond our knowledge.
Monotheism is the view that God is just one person, God is eternal but there does not have to be a Trinity. As there is no other religion that has a Trinity, we will class Monotheism as an Eternal God who is one person. This describes the view of the Jehovah Witnesses. There is only one person in the Godhead, so this reduces this god to a mono lonely, silent, irrational unloving god. As For their view on Jesus Christ he is just a god a finite creature. Because of the nature of this mono eternal god their "Jesus’ cannot have any relationship with his God the Father as he is impersonal.
The last view is Materialism, the worship of nature or the claim that all that exists is the material world of matter and atoms. This worldview has no external personal mind behind it and the universe we are told just popped out of nothing by chance and has evolved by blind fate ever since. This again is the foundation for irrationlaism.
The religions that include this view are Buddhism, Naturalism, and Atheism.
I include Atheism, as it is a religion, it is a "faith" a belief based on first principles, which can not be proven, in the power of chance. Chance cannot be a foundation for intelligence.
As I have already shown if your ultimate source of reality is irrational and impersonal then at the finite level it will also be irrational. As irrationalism can not produce the rational or meaning. If it could there would be no way of distinguishing them from each other. If the universe is ultimately meaningless, then every single atom and object is meaningless. I will now demonstrate the impersonal religions that exist and reduce them to irrationalism.
The worldview of Pantheism (The universe is God) is impersonal. There is no mind in it or behind it. God is basically an impersonal force throughout the universe.
Religions that hold this view include Hinduism, and Taoism and the New Age.
Some may object and say that in Hinduism there is a trinity Brahma, Vishna, and
Siva. But on a closer examination there is no trinity as the Hindu gods are three gods, not one God in three persons. In other views the god of Hinduism is three different manifestations of the same god, which is also not the trinity. We must remember the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity. For without the Trinity, there cannot be an absolute rational personal communicating God of love. If you are lost, re-read it!
Finite godism is the view that god is not eternal and that he came into existence.
This means that "His" existence is based on irrational blind chance. This god’s foundation for his intelligence is the impersonal world of matter.
The Worldview of Polytheism is almost like the above, but here there are many finite gods, some stronger than others, but their cause for their existence is the same. Their ultimate environment is impersonal and irrational, leaving them as meaningless objects. The religions, which hold to this worldview, include Animism, some forms of Hinduism, Greek, Rome and Egypt religions and Mormonism.
The next view is Deism, this is a god who creates the world like a machine and leaves it. He has no relationship with it. He may be eternal, but no one can know him or know anything about him, as he does not reveal himself. We could not even know if there was a Deism god because it is beyond our knowledge.
Monotheism is the view that God is just one person, God is eternal but there does not have to be a Trinity. As there is no other religion that has a Trinity, we will class Monotheism as an Eternal God who is one person. This describes the view of the Jehovah Witnesses. There is only one person in the Godhead, so this reduces this god to a mono lonely, silent, irrational unloving god. As For their view on Jesus Christ he is just a god a finite creature. Because of the nature of this mono eternal god their "Jesus’ cannot have any relationship with his God the Father as he is impersonal.
The last view is Materialism, the worship of nature or the claim that all that exists is the material world of matter and atoms. This worldview has no external personal mind behind it and the universe we are told just popped out of nothing by chance and has evolved by blind fate ever since. This again is the foundation for irrationlaism.
The religions that include this view are Buddhism, Naturalism, and Atheism.
I include Atheism, as it is a religion, it is a "faith" a belief based on first principles, which can not be proven, in the power of chance. Chance cannot be a foundation for intelligence.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Conclusion's so far....
What I would like to do now is define the main points that I have tried to demonstrate in my posts on the "failure of Unbelief".
There are two options, ultimate reality is meaningful and rational or irrational and impersonal.
If the universe as a whole is meaningful and rational then there is a rational mind behind it who has given his creation an interpretation (God). This mind has created everything for a purpose, and everything relates to each other in a unified plan. Because this mind has created everything with a purpose he has by his creation given finite reality an interpretation. A tree is a tree because God created to be one and said it was a tree.
The problem with most of the history of thought is that they have excluded the existence of God’s interpretation. For them man is the first rational being who looks out into the world to interpret it. But if there is no ultimate interpretation to reality as a whole what is man to find in the way of knowledge or facts. The world outside for them is here by chance, impersonal and irrational.
What can man say rationally about the irrational? And how can we say that man’s thinking is even rational if man is a part of the whole. Cause then the irrational has produce the rational. How could we distinguish one from the other? How could we even understand ourselves in an irrational environment?
If there is to be objective knowledge and objective facts then there must be an interpretation to the whole of reality. We would call it divine revelation.
There are two options, ultimate reality is meaningful and rational or irrational and impersonal.
If the universe as a whole is meaningful and rational then there is a rational mind behind it who has given his creation an interpretation (God). This mind has created everything for a purpose, and everything relates to each other in a unified plan. Because this mind has created everything with a purpose he has by his creation given finite reality an interpretation. A tree is a tree because God created to be one and said it was a tree.
The problem with most of the history of thought is that they have excluded the existence of God’s interpretation. For them man is the first rational being who looks out into the world to interpret it. But if there is no ultimate interpretation to reality as a whole what is man to find in the way of knowledge or facts. The world outside for them is here by chance, impersonal and irrational.
What can man say rationally about the irrational? And how can we say that man’s thinking is even rational if man is a part of the whole. Cause then the irrational has produce the rational. How could we distinguish one from the other? How could we even understand ourselves in an irrational environment?
If there is to be objective knowledge and objective facts then there must be an interpretation to the whole of reality. We would call it divine revelation.
Does Language and Words correspond to reality?
The next group of Philosophers we will look are those who deny that Language and words mirror reality. For the Nominalists language is purely designative, we give objects names according to words we have thought up or invented. There is no absolute relationship between our words and the objective world of objects. For the Nominalist there is no reason why something must be called what it is as language is just labeling things in a unit of agreed expressions. In the absence of things there is no meaning and the world is not a meaningful order interpreted by God. Basically for them, groups of people agree on an interpretation and express it on to the meaningless order of the world.
Language exists because we have designated the connections between words.
I think this is false because we have concepts in our heads, which are universal and even if the concept is used with a different language it is still representing the same thing. And Language studies have found that Languages are very interrelated in there make up. It’s not as if we have just made up words from nothing. But the Nominalist is right, if there is no God, then we are just making up our own words and labeling reality and we can call any object any name. So can one group of people call evil good and good evil? Or does evil, the concept that must be bound to some word to know it correspond to an objective reality making it an absolute.
The true rationalist is also doing the same thing as the Nominalist and if empiricists are correct, language is just a collection of independent words or sounds, as they can not be found in the objective world. Language and words are just labels and are beyond the empirical and can not be tested to be true.
The Postmodern thinkers of our age have taken this theory on board and believe that we create reality and truth. Postmodernists realize that a naturalistic worldview renders transcendence impossible. There is no "God’s eye view" of anything, and all human eyes are hopelessly prejudiced. Truth dissolves into endless perspectives, which are accountable to nothing out side themselves.
This leads us to the final stage of the failure of unbelief "Nihilism" that the world is utterly meaningless and knowledge of anything can not be known.
Language exists because we have designated the connections between words.
I think this is false because we have concepts in our heads, which are universal and even if the concept is used with a different language it is still representing the same thing. And Language studies have found that Languages are very interrelated in there make up. It’s not as if we have just made up words from nothing. But the Nominalist is right, if there is no God, then we are just making up our own words and labeling reality and we can call any object any name. So can one group of people call evil good and good evil? Or does evil, the concept that must be bound to some word to know it correspond to an objective reality making it an absolute.
The true rationalist is also doing the same thing as the Nominalist and if empiricists are correct, language is just a collection of independent words or sounds, as they can not be found in the objective world. Language and words are just labels and are beyond the empirical and can not be tested to be true.
The Postmodern thinkers of our age have taken this theory on board and believe that we create reality and truth. Postmodernists realize that a naturalistic worldview renders transcendence impossible. There is no "God’s eye view" of anything, and all human eyes are hopelessly prejudiced. Truth dissolves into endless perspectives, which are accountable to nothing out side themselves.
This leads us to the final stage of the failure of unbelief "Nihilism" that the world is utterly meaningless and knowledge of anything can not be known.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)