tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8965764313983512059.post6012095122001262921..comments2024-01-10T01:22:40.070-07:00Comments on oddXian: ABC Face Off - Proving GododdXianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15427095709766850092noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8965764313983512059.post-44139263696363623302007-05-14T12:36:00.000-07:002007-05-14T12:36:00.000-07:00I have used both presuppositional and evidential a...I have used both presuppositional and evidential apologetics, but each must be used in the proper setting, and the limits of evidential apologetics must be acknowledged. Yes, in a universe designed by the very God who authored the Scriptures, we should see some evidence of that fact. The problem is twofold...<br><br>1.) Evidence can change.<br>2.) Evidence is not proof.<br><br>So when Kirk Cameron started off by suggesting that <i>"the existence of God can be proven 100% absolutely, without the use of faith”</i>, he was easy pickings from there on out.<br><br>The best approach is to acknowledge that belief in God is based on faith alone. Many evangelicals have an issue with this, because they have bought into the secular humanistic notion that faith must be divorced from reality, devoid of any logic or reason, and opposed to science and rational thinking. This is why they need the evidential approach, in order to help "build their faith". This is a false view of faith, and it must be pointed out that atheism is every bit as much of a faith-based worldview as Christianity. From there on out, we can put the atheist on the defensive somewhat. Clearly, this is where Ray and Kirk dropped the ball.Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8965764313983512059.post-47306070980805178662007-05-14T11:30:00.000-07:002007-05-14T11:30:00.000-07:00I read somewhere else that an observer complained ...I read somewhere else that an observer complained about the fact that the approach taken by the Christians in this debate was criticized. The basis is the difference between presuppositional and evidential apologetics. In general, I have seen evangelists go the evidential route.<br><br>However, as PL notes here, and as most Christian philosophers state, the difference between the atheist and the Christian is not the evidence. This is easy to demonstrate by asking an atheist what evidence he would consider as valid for the existence of God. The stock answer is that such a person requires a personal appearance from God.<br><br>Of course, this leads to numerous other arguments, such as why the atheist discounts personal experience from others, or the historical record that shows a personal appearance from God. In reality, the appeal for a personal experience is as a result of the inductive way of thinking. Which is useless to determine absolute truth. <br><br>In the debate on ABC, we saw a perfect example of that. Both parties argued inductively, and neither made an overwhelming case. Frankly, it is pretty much impossible to make an overwhelming case by inductive reasoning in the case of God's existence.<br><br>Unless the debate is centered around epistomology to start with, which leads to deductive reasoning, there will only ever be quasi-ad-hominem arguments (my evidence trumps your evidence). Once a deductive framework is established, the epistomology and ontology of the atheist can be dissected.<br><br>Well-meaning evangelists don't want to offend their opponents by attacking their basic principles, but in the process fall into the trap of fallacious reasoning.Augusthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12811077365729979841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8965764313983512059.post-79069144357840336852007-05-12T18:49:00.000-07:002007-05-12T18:49:00.000-07:00I would also like to add that, if the Christian Go...I would also like to add that, if the Christian God were merely the projection of western culture, I wouls expect that all westerners would be Christians, and no easterners. Since this is obviously not true, we need another explanation, like what Jonathan Edwards refers to as <a href="http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/edwards_light.html" rel="nofollow">A Devine and Supernatural Light</a>Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8965764313983512059.post-71722616819768027522007-05-12T07:48:00.000-07:002007-05-12T07:48:00.000-07:00Good points sword guy. It appeared the show was e...Good points sword guy. It appeared the show was edited and we did not see the entire back and forth exchanges. I think at the point when the atheists asked who created God was a great opportunity to have pointed out that either inert matter or an intelligent being (God) must have the power of being in an of itself. One of these choices must be self-existent and not be able to not be, because if there were ever a time or point when nothing existed, then nothing would exist today. Therefore, the two basic choices are matter or an intelligent entity (God). Granted the concept of it being God is hard for the human mind to grasp, but it is pure nonsense to assert that matter/energy is the answer. <br><br>If some atheist wants to explain how something comes from nothing absent an outside cause or that matter has always existed, then I am all ears. To deny God is not enough. They must prove one of these two positions since their atheistic faith is based on one of them being true.jazzycathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16720471765591930568noreply@blogger.com