Deep Time – the god of our Age

Throughout history, human beings have had the tendency to reject their Creator, and replace Him in their lives with gods of their own making.  From the Greek and Roman pantheons, to the Egyptian sun-god, people would rather worship a god that they create than the God who created them.  Such false gods always have the following characteristics.  (1) They are attributed one or more characteristics or powers that belong only to the Living God, especially a power over some aspect of nature.  (2) They are given allegiance, worship, or reverence above God in at least some way.  (3) They are created either physically or conceptually by man. (4) They are not the Living God, the Creator of all things.

In our modern “educated” world, people often look back at the silliness of the Greek, Roman, or Babylonian gods, as if we are far too sophisticated for such primitive nonsense.  But that just isn’t the case.  There are many false gods in our modern world; entities that are revered by people above God, and attributed powers that they cannot literally possess.  Whether it is the worship of concepts like nature, or power, or physical entities like money, such things should not be respected above God, and they cannot do what God alone can do.

But one false god stands out among others today; this god is worshipped and reverenced as the ultimate god of our culture.  Many books have been written about him, and dedicated to him.  He is the foundation of most modern philosophy and education.  What is the ultimate false god of our age?  Is it Evolution?  No, Evolution is certainly a popular god.  But many people doubt Evolution.  And in any case, Evolution answers to a higher god – a god who is far more popular and powerful than Evolution: the god Deep Time.

Deep Time is the concept of vast ages of pre-history: the notion that the Earth and universe are billions of years old.  It is a popular belief today, and is considered by many people to be the mainstream “scientific” position.  Disciples of Deep Time would probably object to the notion that he is a god, or that he is even a person at all.  They might say that Deep Time is an academic concept, the conclusion of scientific reasoning – not a person with power.  However, by their actions, Deep Time disciples do indeed imbue him with personal characteristics and powers that only a conscious being can possess.  Students of logic will recognize this as a reification fallacy.  Nonetheless, for this article, we shall honor their beliefs and refer to their god as their actions suggest that we should.  Deep Time, as he is commonly followed today, does indeed fit the characteristics of a false god.

Consider (1) Deep Time has characteristics and powers that belong to God alone.  In fact, the parallels are truly amazing!  For example, Deep Time has the power of creation.  According to His followers, he has made stars, planets, and galaxies.  He has made canyons, and mountains.  Deep Time separated the continents and oceans.  He has made all living creatures through his servant – Evolution.  Indeed, Deep Time took the elements of this world, and from that dust he made man.  These are all powers and actions that are rightly reserved for God alone (Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 33:6, Job 38:4, Psalm 104:5-8, Genesis 1:9-10, Genesis 1:20-25, Genesis 2:7).

But it doesn’t end there.  Deep Time is also said to have tremendous power to direct the course of events in the universe.  Deep Time creates and destroys species and civilizations at a whim.  He gives life and takes it away.  He continually shapes the earth as he sees fit – changing deserts to lush gardens, and gardens to deserts.  Deep Time existed long before man, and will continue long after man, or so we are told.  Again, these are characteristics that are rightly attributed only to God (Acts 17:26, Job 42:2, Isaiah 46:10, Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Acts 17:25, 1 Timothy 6:13, Job 1:21, Isaiah 51:3, 43:19-20, Genesis 13:10, Deuteronomy 29:23, Genesis 17:1, Deuteronomy 33:27, Isaiah 43:10, Revelation 22:13).

But according to his disciples, nothing is too difficult for Deep Time!  He is able to do any miracle!  Consider this famous quote from Dr. George Wald, “Time is the hero of the plot. … Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, the probable becomes virtually certain.  One only has to wait; time itself performs the miracles.”  Yes, the gradual evolution of dust into people may seem impossible.  But with Deep Time, all things are possible!  He is the “hero of the plot!”  Compare this with the characteristics associated with the biblical God (Matthew 19:26, Jeremiah 32:17).

(2) Disciples of Deep Time worship him with reverence and awe.  They may deny this with their words, but their actions indicate that they do cherish this god above all others.  This makes sense: if indeed Deep Time does have the powers and abilities that his disciples attribute to him, then he should be worshiped.  Such worship takes place in the schools and universities, where Deep Time’s wonderful works are praised all the day long.

The worship of Deep Time is found in many a science textbook too.  Sandwiched in between the discussions of science will be stories about the amazing feats of Deep Time.  A little science here, and an amazing story there.  Although Deep Time has nothing to do with science, often the science and the stories are interleaved such that it can be difficult to tell where one begins and the other ends!  The mixture makes for an entertaining, though deceptive read.

Devotees take their religion very seriously.  Deep Time must not be questioned.  That would be sacrilege!  Those who fail to worship at the altar of Deep Time are ridiculed, and face being expelled from the classroom.  Textbooks that fail to acknowledge the supreme lordship of Deep Time are not likely to be used, or even published.  Those who wish to work as professors must swear allegiance to Deep Time and His servant Evolution if they want to be hired.

(3) Deep Time is manmade.  The concept of vast ages of prehistory is not something that has been revealed to us by the Living God, nor recorded by the history books of men.  Rather, it is an invention of man to account for the characteristics of our present world without invoking biblical history.  The modern version of Deep Time can be traced back to James Hutton – a medical doctor who lived in the 18th century.  His ideas were further popularized by Charles Lyell in the early 19th century.  However, this is merely a re-imagining of a much older idea.  A number of ancient cultures believed that the Earth was significantly older than the biblical timescale.

(4) Deep Time is not the Living God.  Nor is Deep Time an aspect of God, a creation of God, or an ally of God.  Deep Time exists only as a concept, created by the mind of men.  He has no literal existence.  Although his disciples ascribe to him many of the characteristics of the biblical God, it is clear that Deep Time is fundamentally different than the God of the Bible.

The biblical God is love (1 John 4:8).  The biblical God is righteous, just, and merciful.  He made a perfect world with no pain or death, a world that was corrupted by Adam’s sinful actions.  God punishes evil, as any good judge will do.  However, God is so full of love and mercy, that He has extended forgiveness to all who will trust in Him.  He has paid the penalty for their treason by dying on a cross in their place, and will undo the curse of death by resurrecting everyone.

But Deep Time is a cruel, uncaring creator.  He creates billions of organisms, only to slaughter them off at a whim.  He does not care about justice or love, and is merciless and arbitrary in his judgments.  He creates using death and pain, and does not listen to the cries of anguish of his creations.  He punishes the innocent along with the guilty, and rewards evil and good alike.  There is no forgiveness or mercy to be found in Deep Time – only the certainty of death.

This last characteristic deserves special attention.  For the biblical God, death is an enemy that was introduced by Adam’s sin: an enemy that God Himself will destroy (1 Corinthians 15:21, 25-26).  But death is Deep Time’s ally and servant.  Evolution works through death.  Progress is made incrementally by the slaughtering of billions of creatures, so that one may gain a slight improvement.  What a sadistic and inefficient process that Deep Time has chosen!  I can only say that I’m grateful to the Living God that Deep Time doesn’t actually exist.  What a horrible god he would be!

Since Deep Time is so contrary in nature and actions to the God of Scripture, it is disappointing that many Christians attempt to honor and serve both of them.  There are those who teach that God used Deep Time to create the universe, in stark contrast to God’s own revelation of creation.  They claim that God used billions of years of death and suffering to get the world to be the way He wanted it (apparently unaware that death is an enemy of God, and one that was introduced as a punishment for Adam’s sin.)  It’s not that modern Christians want to give up the True God.  Rather, they simply want to add another god, one who is contrary in nature and actions to the Living God.  Unfortunately, this type of syncretism has been a common failing in God’s people.

Consider the Israelites.  Their main struggle was not with giving up God completely, but with adding other gods.  They wanted to merge their beliefs with the pagan practices of the day, and worshiped and served the gods of Canaan.  This was totally inappropriate, not only because the Canaanite gods are fictitious inventions of the mind, but because God alone deserves our worship and does not tolerate idolatry.  In the First Commandment, God states that “You shall have no other gods before Me.”  The phrase translated “before Me” has the meaning of “in my presence.”  Scripture is clear: God alone is to be worshiped as God (e.g. Matthew 4:9-10).

Remember reading of Baal?  Baal was the Canaanite god of weather and thunder.  The Israelites often fell into Baal worship, in violation of the First Commandment.  Elijah pointed out their absurd inconsistency in 1 Kings 18:21, “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.”  It was illogical for the Israelites to attempt to serve two contrary gods (and immoral).  Are we any different today when we try to add other gods to Christianity?

No man can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24).  Those Christians who want to believe in Deep Time along with the biblical God are being dreadfully inconsistent.  They may claim that they serve the Lord alone, but by their actions they reveal that Deep Time is their primary god, and the Lord is secondary.  We can tell this by the way they handle Scripture.  For the Deep-Time-Christian, all Scripture is interpreted in light of the dictates of Deep Time.  Thus, Deep Time is primary, and the Scriptures are secondary.  Indeed, if the Scriptures were primary, then the individual would have to reject Deep Time as a false god (Exodus 20:3, Isaiah 45:5-6) and fictitious concept (Exodus 20:11)

It can be discouraging to see so many Christians attempting to serve the pagan god Deep Time.  It often feels like the Christians who truly stand on God’s Word are so very few.  But we should remember that Elijah was discouraged as well.  In a time when he was afraid for his life, and thinking that he was the last faithful believer he cried out to God (1 Kings 19:14).  But the Lord responded, “Yet I will leave 7,000 in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed him.” (1 Kings 19:18).  Think of this the next time you are discouraged about the rampant compromise within the Church.  How many more Christians has the Lord kept for Himself who have not bowed the knee to Deep Time?

About Dr. Lisle

Dr. Jason Lisle is a Christian astrophysicist who writes and speaks on various topics relating to science and the defense of the Christian faith. He graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double-majored in physics and astronomy and minored in mathematics. He then earned a master’s degree and a Ph.D. in astrophysics at the University of Colorado in Boulder. Dr. Lisle specialized in solar astrophysics and has made a number of scientific discoveries regarding the solar photosphere, including the detection of giant cell boundaries using the SOHO spacecraft. He also does theoretical research and has contributed to the field of general relativity. Since completion of his research at the University of Colorado, Dr. Lisle began working in full-time apologetics ministry, specializing in the defense of Genesis. He has written a number of articles and books on the topic. His most well-known book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, demonstrates that biblical creation is the only logical possibility for origins. Dr. Lisle wrote and directed the popular planetarium shows at the Creation Museum, including “The Created Cosmos.” He now works as director of research at the Institute for Creation Research.
This entry was posted in apologetics, origins and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

502 Responses to Deep Time – the god of our Age

  1. Josh Gray says:

    My friend (an atheist) is doing a research paper on the origin and development of the universe. He posed the following questions on his facebook page. “Do the abundance of light elements help the theory? And is the cosmic microwave background radiation cooling in proportion to the rate at which the universe is expanding? Please any help on understanding all the evidence of the theory will be greatly appreciated” I suppose by theory he means the big bang. Is there any reply I could give to this?

    • Dr. Lisle says:

      Hi Josh,

      The abundance of the light elements is sometimes used as an evidence of the big bang. But this isn’t legitimate because the abundance of the light elements was known before big bang nucleosynthesis was worked out. It’s not a prediction. The initial conditions thought to exist during the big bang have been adjusted to fit the known abundance of light elements. By light elements, I mean the three lightest elements – hydrogen, helium, and lithium. The big bang cannot, by itself, account for the abundance or even the existence of the other ~90 naturally occurring elements.

      The cooling of the CMB cannot be observed – it’s a slow process. But we would all expect that it would cool in proportion to the expansion of the universe because standard physics predicts this. This has nothing to do with the big bang. That is, we expect the temperature of the CMB to drop as the universe expands regardless of how the universe began or regardless of what causes the CMB.

      So neither of these gives any credibility to the big bang.

  2. Josh Gray says:

    Thank you Dr. Lisle.

    One more thing. I just bought Ultimate Proof today so I haven’t had time yet to read it and apply it to my conversations with unbelievers. So just a quick question in regards to 2 Kings 2:24. When an unbeliever brings this verse up and says something like “How can you believe God would do that!” Or “If you really agree with that you’re an a******” (which has been said to me) what’s a response for that?

    And do you mind answering questions here every now and then? I know you have a busy schedule probably.

    • Dr. Lisle says:

      Hi Josh,

      Regarding 2 Kings 2:24, we need to recognize that God judges the wicked. The critic might say, “But that judgment is too severe.” My reply is, “By what standard?” The critic has no basis for making any moral judgments at all. In his view, the two young men who were killed in 2 Kings 2:24 were simply chemical accidents. Besides, bears have to eat. Why does the critic complain that the Lord provided the bears with a full meal that day, rather than letting them starve? The fact that the critic values the lives of the people more than the bears shows that he really knows the biblical worldview is true. His criticism against Scripture is self-delusion.

      When people resort to name-calling, this is called an abusive ad hominem fallacy. It is a last-ditch effort to persuade by emotion when a person has no logic to support his position. You could respond with a smile and mild sarcasm, “What a well-thought out, logical argument! I never thought of it that way before!” Or you might just point out that it’s a fallacy, and has no bearing on the truth of the matter. Either way, be gentle. And I wouldn’t continue after that point. The ad hominem fallacy shows that a person is unwilling to reason rationally, so there is no point in further discussion.

      I’m happy to answer questions as time permits.

      • Reynold says:

        So, it’s only the BIBLE and nothing else that places any value on human life?

        [Dr. Lisle: No. Lots of people value human life. The problem is that they cannot provide an objective reason for doing so. The Bible provides rational justification for objective value of human life.]

        So evolution would not then have each species develop an instinct for the preservation of their own species, is that what you’re saying? That doesn’t seem like it’d be very conducive to the survival and propagation of that species does it?

        [Dr. Lisle: Aside from this reification fallacy on evolution, even if I grant that species have instincts to preserve their species, who decides which species is to be most valued? Is it morally right for a lion to kill a person for food? Who decides?]

        As for basic morality: In more secular countries like some of those in Europe, people are taught to be good citizens regardless of whether any god exists. It’s a good survival technique if nothing else.

        [Dr. Lisle: For people who are very sloppy thinkers and intellectually lazy, this works perfectly well. They are told to behave a certain way and that to do so is "good", and they mindlessly follow. But astute thinkers will ask, "Why should I behave that way? How do you know that such behavior is 'good?' Who decides? Why should survival be classified as 'good?' And who's survival is most important anyway?"]

        • Josef says:

          “As for basic morality: In more secular countries like some of those in Europe, people are taught to be good citizens regardless of whether any god exists. It’s a good survival technique if nothing else.”

          Good according to what standard? Who decides what is “good”? Apparently you believe in a universal standard for good, so surely you can tell me what this objective, universal standard is, right? And survival techniques do not necessarily equate to being moral.

      • Mark Borok says:

        My understanding is that the episode of Elijah and the bears was meant to illustrate a failing on Elijah’s part. At least one rabbinical interpretation is that it shows that even a prophet of God needs to control his temper. The ancients believed that a curse had a life of its own, and once released it could not be stopped. If this is correct, then God has no more to do with the bears mauling the boys than if Elijah had shot them with an arrow. (This is based on my annotated Bible, I am going by the remarks of Bible scholars).

  3. Jacob Howard says:

    Hi,

    I know it might be off subject but I had a burning question I couldn’t think of getting an answer for except from here. A long time back I remember watching a video that documented the rise of abortion, murder, etc. rates after evolution was allowed into school. Does anybody know where I could get that video or similar material? Thanks!

    In Christ Jesus alone,

    Jacob Howard

    http://www.theyspeak.org

  4. Scott Sherrell says:

    Dr. Lisle,

    A few questions:

    1.) Essences are just definitions that we superimpose on things, correct? Nobody can empirically verify the existence of essences and the concept isn’t in scripture. So how can the “three persons, one essence” formula of the Trinity mean anything other than that there are three god-persons with one definition for what it means to be God? How can that be monotheistic?
    James, Peter, and John are three humans who share in one human nature, right? But you would say that they are three humans. So why wouldn’t you call each member of the Trinity a God?

    2.) What do you think is the best evidence from astrology that the universe is young? (Please don’t tell me that the best proof is that science presupposes the Bible – I could just as easily say it presupposes the Quran or presupposes a belief in the Platonic Demiurge and Plato’s Theory of Forms).

    3.) I read Starlight and Time. Could you please explain his “White-Hole Cosmology” and tell me whether or not you agree with it? I know almost nothing about Physics and Astronomy and cannot tell whether this book is onto something or is just pseudoscientific wishful thinking.

    4) Are you giving any conferences / speeches near Plano, Texas any time soon? Or just in the Dallas area in general?

  5. Scott Sherrell says:

    I would be interested in attending one of your talks if you are – just email me the details.

    • Dr. Lisle says:

      Hi Scott,

      > 1.) Essences are just definitions that we superimpose on things, correct? Nobody can empirically verify the existence of essences and the concept isn’t in scripture.

      ‘Essence’ means the “basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its significant individual feature or features.” The essence is what determines the identity of something. An essence is not a material substance; rather, it is the concept of the essential features that mark the identity of something. It is the basic nature of something. The concept of essence or nature is Scriptural. See for example Romans 11:24, Galatians 2:15, Ephesians 2:3, which all address the “nature” of certain things.

      > So how can the “three persons, one essence” formula of the Trinity mean anything other than that there are three god-persons with one definition for what it means to be God? How can that be monotheistic?

      It’s not just that the three persons of the Trinity are all defined as God. Rather, they are all the same God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all of the same “substance.” The Bible affirms that there is only one God. It further affirms that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Yet the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different persons.

      > James, Peter, and John are three humans who share in one human nature, right? But you would say that they are three humans. So why wouldn’t you call each member of the Trinity a God?

      The words are being used in a slightly different way here. I will try to clarity. James, Peter, and John all have the same type of nature – a human nature, but they are not “of the same nature.” In other words, James, Peter, and John are not the same human – they are three different humans. So they are not a trinity. They are three persons, and three humans. God is different. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of the same nature, not just the same “type.” They are all the same God. It’s hard for us to “picture” this. But it is Scriptural.

      > 2.) What do you think is the best evidence from astrology that the universe is young?

      I think you mean “astronomy.” I’ll answer this below.

      > (Please don’t tell me that the best proof is that science presupposes the Bible – I could just as easily say it presupposes the Quran or presupposes a belief in the Platonic Demiurge and Plato’s Theory of Forms).

      No, the Koran does not provide the preconditions necessary for science. Allah is not logically consistent, which would be necessary for science. Moreover, I can’t find any reference in the Koran to Allah being beyond time, which is necessary for the scientific principle of induction. Likewise, Platonic philosophy is inadequate for science because there is no reason why the physical universe should match up with Plato’s Forms. Plato was never able to account for how things can change (as Aristotle pointed out), and yet change is an essential part of science.

      This is an important point Scott. So don’t miss it. Only in the Christian worldview as defined in the Bible would scientific reasoning make sense. God is beyond time (e.g. 2 Peter 3:8) and God promises to uphold the universe in a consistent and predictable way (e.g. Genesis 8:22). God has created our minds with the ability to reason, and has made our senses to reliably probe the universe. Only under such conditions would science be possible. The Bible is necessarily true if science is reliable. And the Bible teaches a “young universe.” That’s the best evidence for a young universe – the Word of the Creator.

      Nonetheless, there are lines of evidence from astronomy that confirm this. Blue stars cannot last many millions of years, so they suggest a young universe. The recession of the moon from the Earth has a timescale much less than its alleged secular age of over 4 billion years. Comets cannot last even 100,000 years, yet they are abundant in our solar system. The magnetic fields of planets decay on a timescale that is consistent with their biblical age of about 6000 years. The internal heat of Jupiter, and Neptune makes sense if they are 6000 years old, but is too hot if the planets were billions of years old. Spiral galaxies wrap themselves up on a timescale of less than their secular assumed age of 10 billion years. That’s just a sample.

      > 3.) I read Starlight and Time. Could you please explain his “White-Hole Cosmology” and tell me whether or not you agree with it? I know almost nothing about Physics and Astronomy and cannot tell whether this book is onto something or is just pseudoscientific wishful thinking.

      It’s not pseudoscience, but I’m not convinced that it’s the best answer either. Essentially, the model states that time flows more slowly on earth than in deep space since earth is in a “gravitational well” – very near the center of mass of the galaxies in the universe. In Humphrey’s model, galaxies can have aged millions of years, while only 6000 years elapsed on Earth. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity affirms that this sort of thing can indeed happen. But so far, no one has been able to work out the details of Dr. Humphrey’s model so that the starlight really can get here in 6000 years as measured by Earth. I like the ASC model.

      > 4) Are you giving any conferences / speeches near Plano, Texas any time soon? Or just in the Dallas area in general?

      Mostly closer to Dallas. You can check out all ICR events here:
      http://www.icr.org/index.php?f_submit=Search&module=events&action=search

  6. Larry Neuman says:

    Quantum Consciousness

    There is a scripture, Romans 1:19-23, that explains a condition of mans consciousness. Essentially that there are invisible things that can be understood by the things that are made. Does it make sense to you? It trigers a funny memory of an experience I had as a child of about 10.

    When I returned from church, I visited my grandmother who was incapacitated in bed in her room. She inquired about the sermon. I explained it was all about idolatry. She insisted that I must explain it more. I felt anger building up inside because I knew because of her wisdom and age, she should be explaining things to me rather than I to her. Just to appease her I continued to explain. Noticing the clock above her bed, I attempted to make it clear. Ancient idol worship of gods made of stone or wood are not relevant today, but you could be worshiping that clock above your bed. There was more to the explanation, but anyway she was happy with it all. As I contemplated what I had said; it really didn’t make sense that someone would worship a clock even to me, but perhaps they could have a weird fixation on a concept of time it represented, even acquiesce to a condition like worship.

    I also had a memory triggered of an experience I had much later in life. It happened while I studied an old testament scripture on idolatry. I’ve never attempted to explain it because I could not imagine how to but it to words. It was a revelation of God’s consciousness of idol worshiping. It was an awesome momentary experience. I only mention it because it is relevant to the inherent condition of man’s consciousness. Because of the foolishness of his heart he changes what he senses as pure and incorruptible into anything than accommodates his pride and his concept of intelligence. I hope that conveying my own experiences might trigger some understanding.

  7. Ron Jones says:

    I am currently enjoying your book “Ultimate Proof.” This article as well.

    Of late, I have begun to suspect that the true danger of evolutionary theology isn’t the past. But the future.

    “In the Beginning…” is foundational to everything in the Bible. Of course John 3:12 and Hebrews 11:6 say it best.

    Evolution, however, is built on the foundation of lies that the serpent sold to Eve in Genesis chapter 3.
    “And the serpent said unto the woman,”
    1. “Ye shall not surely die:” (immortality)
    2. “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened,” (enlightenment)
    3. “and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (apotheosis).

    When illustrated this way, these lies are central to every mystery religion in history; not to mention the “newage” movement (just a repackaging of the same old steaming pile of lies, prettified with crystals and pushed by familiar spirits).

    No wonder the Bible warns us about “science falsely so called” (I Tim 6:20).

  8. Pingback: Deep Time: It’s “Discovery”, Promulgation, and Use Against the Biblical Worldview: Part 1 | Luv Notes To Daughters

  9. Richard Henry says:

    Afternoon Dr. Lisle. All I have to say is that you’re such a fantastic example of humility and smarts with such a titanic impact in this field. Sorry to have seen you depart from AiG, but very pleased to see you’ve joined ICR.

    Keep up the great work! You’re clarity on science and the bible is hard to come by among creation scholars. Nice job brother, the Lord has blessed you well.

    Richard from California

  10. Pingback: A place to collect misinformation - Page 23 - Christian Forums

  11. Jacob Howard says:

    Hi Dr. Lisle,

    I read your discussion with Tony and I found it amazing. You are incredibly knowledgeable about logic and I find it very . . . cool . . . that you are on our side. Actually, recently I got a book by Patrick Hurley. The book was a introduction on logic and is absolutely awesome. Have you heard of this author? Did you see my other comment? Do you know of any other good logic authors? Thanks!

    In Christ Jesus alone,

    Jacob Howard

    http://www.theyspeak.org

    • Dr. Lisle says:

      Thank you Jacob. I’m just grateful that the Lord has called me to be on His side. No – I’ve not read the book by Hurley. I may have seen your other comment, but it’s hard for me to keep track, and I just can’t get to all of them. Regarding other authors on logic, I like the textbook by Copi and Cohen. S. Morris Engel also has a good one on informal fallacies. As I recall, he dedicated it to his wife, which made me chuckle – as if arguing with her had been the inspiration for writing a book on logical fallacies. :-)

      • Jacob Howard says:

        Hi Dr Lisle,

        Well, his book is amazing so far, but it is definitely more beginner style so I’m learning a lot. It makes me want to write and talk about logic all day!

        I had just asked, in that other comment, if you had an email because I didn’t have Facebook and I’d like to talk to you on a more . . . private wavelength.

        That is hilarious! That is some good logic right there. I’ll look them up for sure!

        Thanks!

        In Christ Jesus alone,

        Jacob Howard

        http://www.theyspeak.org

  12. Steve says:

    You may have seen this listed under “recent comments”:

    A place to collect misinformation – Page 23 – Christian Forums on Deep Time – the god of our Age

    I’m not sure if there was actually a comment connected to that. When I click on it, it took me to christianforums.com where I have visited a few times in the past. Basically someone copied bits of your article and posted it in the thread over at that forum and there were several comments about it. I took a stab at commenting about other arguments that I saw arise to which I got a rebuttal from three different people. One of those was an atheist simply accusing me of trolling and not actually answering my question.
    Anyway, first I thought it was ironic that an atheist who has racked up several thousand posts on a Christian forum is accusing a Christian of trolling. :)

    I was going to respond and I may still although the conversation is now 7 pages further from where I started. I wanted to bring up C14 in diamonds as proof of our case so I searched for it on christainforums to see if the topic was already discussed. And it was… as a matter of fact, by the guy who I initially responded to. Please give me your take on this as it gets a bit too out of my league scientifically, it just seems to me that what it comes down to is that they blame C14 in the equipment (and the environment) prior to testing the diamonds. I read the thread for a few pages and it became even more convoluted.

    Carbon-14 in Diamonds
    Many Young Earth Creationists (YEC’s) will claim that 14C measured in diamonds indicates that carbon dating is flawed. This is all based on the assumption that you should not be able to detect an 14C when testing old (>1 million year old) diamonds.

    I, for one, think this is a great example of the subterfuge that YEC’s are all too willing to participate in. If anything exposes YEC for the scam it is, this is the example.

    First, let’s dissect the base assumption, that you should not be able to measure any 14C in old diamonds. This is FALSE. Very, very blatantly false. No one with even a basic understanding of 14C dating would dare to claim this. If you hear a YEC say this you can be very sure that they do not understand 14C dating. Why do I say this?

    First, every instrument has background. Even a sample without any 14C will still produce blips consistent with 14C in any mass spectrometer. This is true of almost any modern scientific instrumentation as sensitive as mass spectrometers.

    Second, there is always going to be 14C added from exogenous sources during the measurement. 14C is in the atmosphere. It gets into the instrument. A second source of exogenous contamination is 14C left over from previous samples.

    Third, 14C is produced by high energy particles hitting naturally occurring nitrogen. This is how it is produced in our upper atmosphere. Guess which gas can be included in diamonds? Yep, you guessed it: nitrogen. When high energy particles from surrounding decay events strike the nitrogen in diamonds it will produce 14C. This will always be a small amount, but it will also be a non-zero amount. Again, the claim that old diamonds should not contain any 14C is clearly false.

    So what of the amount of 14C measured in diamonds by creationists? Not surprisingly, it is consistent with background contamination:

    “The lower values for unprocessed diamond and the current-dependent behavior find no explanation in Baumgardner’s “intrinsic radiocarbon” model. But these results fit well with the Taylor and Southon evidence that instrument background (specifically ion source memory) is material-dependent, with diamond exhibiting significantly less ion source memory than graphite. The radiocarbon detected in natural, unprocessed diamond measurements seems to be nothing more than instrument background.”
    RATE’s Radiocarbon – Intrinsic or Contamination?

    The above article is a great resource for clearing up all of the misinformation that YEC’s spout with reference to 14C in diamonds, coal, etc.

    So again, when you hear a YEC claiming that you should not be able to measure any 14C in diamonds remind them that this is false, and tell them why.

    • Dr. Lisle says:

      Hi Steve,

      The scientists at the laboratories that detected the C-14 in diamonds know what they are doing. They took great care to avoid any possible contamination of the material. They can eliminate the possibility of contamination by measuring a blank sample – which has been done. This critic is mistaken in thinking that the nitrogen in diamonds could be converted to detectable levels of C-14, because these diamonds are found deep in the earth, in layers that are well insulated from cosmic rays. Bottom line: there is no evidence of contamination. It is just wishful thinking on the part of the evolutionists. I hope this helps.

  13. Josef says:

    Dr. Lisle: “Moreover, morality has no basis in your worldview, as we have previously established. ”

    Tony: “No we haven’t, all we have established was that you have only extremely euro-centric thinking, that you cant comprehend Chinese notions of morality, this is like saying only English can provide a basis for grammar…”

    Tony, very often in reading your correspondences with Dr. Lisle, I have felt that you haven’t given his arguments much thought and you just respond “blindly”. And it is comments like these that lead me to think that way. Dr. Lisle has established several times over that apart from the biblical God, any standard for morality that you can come up with will be arbitrary and subjective and even self-refuting. And so far, you have not come up with an alternative that was not.

    And another thing, by now you should know (that is if you are actually paying attention to the arguments) why comparing morality to languages is a category mistake. Unlike morality, languages are conventional and change with time, region and culture.

    “i ahve no “supressed” knowledge your your tribal bronze age deity this is nothing more then just delusional insult typical of people how admit they reason in circles…

    I’m also amazed that you don’t see that you’re reasoning in circles for yourself. The difference is your reasoning is arbitrary and without justification.

    “…once again your so called trilemma doesnt work because you dont seem to understand the definition of an axiom”

    There is nothing wrong with Dr. Lisle’s definition of an axiom. However, axioms need to be justified. If you have ever taken a logic course in mathematics, then you’d know that. No valid axiom exists just for the heck of it. Instead, it would appear that you’re just looking for a reason to avoid answering the tri-lemma.

    • Tony says:

      no actually axioms in math are a little bit different

    • Tony says:

      “I have felt that you haven’t given his arguments much thought and you just respond “blindly”.
      YES congrajulations, after the first few responses i stopped taking his responses seriously and now i just do this for da laffs, and it has been quite funny, alot of posts the doctor made, i didnt see a point to respond, because wel i was actually too busy laughing…. but anyways to anwser your point about axioms -An axiom is a premise which is accepted as true without proof. It differs from an act of faith in that an axiom is typically either accepted “for the sake of argument”, or is simply “self-evident”. Along with definitions, which are also not proved, axioms form the basis of any logical system. Hey i asked smart people for this definition… If you or Dr.Lisle doesnt like this arguement you can meet up with me on Stephen Law’s blog to continue the dicussion on axioms and their nature

      • Josef says:

        “An axiom is a premise which is accepted as true without proof. It differs from an act of faith in that an axiom is typically either accepted “for the sake of argument”, or is simply “self-evident”. “

        Actually I don’t need to meet up with you anywhere. Because it is my axiom that, “Tony is wrong and we are right”, and I think that is self-evident and doesn’t need any proof. Thanks, that was easy.

        • Tony says:

          tony says 1+1=2 so since Tony is wrong 1+1 is no 2?

          • Josef says:

            Tony, nice try; however, I said, “Tony is wrong and we are right”.

            Clearly the “we are right” is referring to the debates we (Dr. Lisle and others) have been having with you. So that’s what we’re right in.

            Once again, situations like these show that you pay very little attention to details.

            • Tony says:

              but it is not the most primitive and basic belief possible only those can be considered axioms

              • Josef says:

                but it is not the most primitive and basic belief possible only those can be considered axioms

                No, because you said that, ‘An axiom is a premise which is accepted as true without proof… “for the sake of argument”, or is simply “self-evident”’

                So it’s my axiom that axioms don’t have to be the most “basic” beliefs, thus, my previous axiom still stands. And since I don’t need to offer any justification for this the issue is settled.

                On a more serious note, do you really not see how you’re using circular reasoning yourself? You said an axiom is simply “self-evident”. In other words, an axiom is true because it’s true. (circular) And since you said that circular reasoning is always wrong, your definition must be false according to yourself.

                How about this Tony, since you refuse to answer Dr. Lisle’s tri-lemma, how about you explain how you know that logic is the correct way of thinking without invoking logic? If you invoke logic to try to explain this, then you will fall into the trap of using circular reasoning (using logic to explain logic). Surely the “most basic beliefs” cannot be justified by a false reasoning method (which according to you, is circular reasoning); otherwise the very foundation of our thinking process would be flawed, and therefore, we cannot know anything at all.

                • Brian Forbes says:

                  I know that Tony isn’t really good at articulating it, but I think you’re both right. Strict logic has either no axioms (because if you keep asking why, there’s always another why) or only axioms. Since you can start from either one or the other, I prefer to find the axioms that are common to me and the person I’m discussing issues with so that we can use logic to come to conclusions we both agree upon. If I think mushrooms are objectively disgusting (and they are), and you don’t, it doesn’t matter how much we discuss it logic won’t help us. We have to go to a deeper level – i.e. my need to stay alive compelled me to eat mushrooms in this prison camp these last two years, and I have learned to enjoy them. Instead of arguing the objective nature of the truth of scripture, perhaps you should show the guy the prophesy in the names of Adam to Noah (Man appointed mortal sorrow, but the blessed God shall come down teaching that his death shall bring the despairing rest.) Even more than his desire not to live out the principals of the Bible, he wants his universe to make sense. You can’t tell the future with accuracy in his view, so he will either have to agree with you or come up with a rescuing device.

                  We all hold to faith to some degree or another. Finding those things where faith is weakest is a debating skill worth developing.

                  • Josef says:

                    Brian,

                    Logic does have axioms, but the only way to justify the axiom is essentially through circular reasoning (you can keep asking why, which is exactly why ultimate axioms are justified by circular reasoning).

                    This is where a valid form of begging the question comes into play. As you probably know, begging the question is, as Dr. Lisle puts it, a strange fallacy in that it is actually valid. With begging the question, your premise is essentially both your premise and your conclusion.

                    In the case of logic, I must use logic to prove logic. This is circular reasoning. However, the difference between simply a valid argument, and a sound argument is that a valid argument might be valid in the sense that the conclusions come from the premise, but a sound argument is a valid argument that is true or justified.

                    An example of a valid argument that isn’t sound is

                    1. All dogs are cats.
                    2. Cats pur.
                    3. Therefore, dogs pur.

                    The conclusion does come from the premise, so the argument is actually valid. But it isn’t a sound argument because while it is valid, it has both a false premise and conclusion.

                    I have to disagree about getting into the Bible prophecies because in order for us to reason, to even make sense of what we read, we must look at our worldviews. Which as Dr. Bahnsen used to put it, a worldview is a network of presuppositions/axioms. If one person has one worldview and someone else has an opposing worldview, then the way we view evidence, even what we read in the Bible, will be different. And yes, you’re right, any prophecy shown in the Bible, a non-Christian like Tony will come up with a “rescuing device”. And that is actually ok and I would expect him to. This is why “evidential” arguments, while they are good and do have their place, are not the starting point.

                    Let’s put it this way: if you and I had a theological discussion over a passage in the Bible, how would we resolve it if I had my rules of interpreting the Bible and you had a completely separate set of rules? We wouldn’t be able to reach a conclusion then. Instead, we’d have to take a step back and come to an agreement of how the Bible should be interpreted. In a sense, that’s what the presuppositionalist’s approach is; it’s a step back to see whose worldview can make sense of the preconditions of intelligibility.

                    Btw, I must agree, mushrooms are nasty… !

                    • Tony says:

                      there are no such things as “rescuing devices”

                      [Dr. Lisle: A rescuing device is an auxiliary hypothesis invoked to protect a worldview from what appears to be contrary evidence. Obviously, they do exist.]

                      you are just saying that as a post hoc rationlization, when you realize that your arguement fails,so you make a bad rationlization to do so

                      [Dr. Lisle: Tony, you like to claim that your opponent's argument fails, but you have yet to demonstrate that - with ANY argument.]

                    • Tony says:

                      and no if two people have different “worldviews” it doesnt effect the way they view evidence,

                      [Dr. Lisle: This one made me chuckle. By definition, a worldview affects the way people view evidence. That is how it is defined. Your worldview is the way you view the world (the evidence).]

                      it only thing that effects evidence is ignorance, you are just saying that because you know that you are adopting a measure of despair

                      [Dr. Lisle: Irony.]

                    • Brian Forbes says:

                      I thought this was an interesting response. In my view, you just claimed some stuff about logic on authority and expected me to accept it because it’s authoritative. You said that logic acts a particular way. The only use that would have for our discussion is to either lay out our own personal axioms for the sake of the debate or to instruct your opponent. Having a Dr. in front of your name (such as Dr. Lisle), people expect the instructions from authority. I mean, educated people really do know a lot of stuff. In your case, though, I haven’t submitted myself to be educated by you, and I haven’t been convinced that your logic follows from my axioms, so the next step is to either lay out more of my axioms so that we can find a flaw in reasoning, lay them out so you can accept them on authority, or just make an illogical claim, such as that you don’t know what you’re talking about. (Read, I don’t accept your authority as a scholar.) Or we can quit, which is probably the course I’m going to take. I don’t need you to accept my answer. I just thought this discussion needed it. Everyone seems to think that axioms always have a truth or two behind them. I say they don’t. We’re as much emotional people as we are logical. More logic in some cases (Dr. Lisle), and some emotional or illogical in others (Tony). I strive for perfect logic mixed with perfect emotions. My prayer this morning was that I know nothing without God, so I asked him to give me His axioms and teach me to hear His voice. Without God, nothing makes sense. I’d take a word from God on faith than a solid logical inference any day.

                • Tony says:

                  but the problem is with your arguement is that with this axiom it is possible to go back even further, an axiom is not true because it is true, it is true because it has SHOWN its self to be true

                  [Dr. Lisle: Tony, when you say "because it has shown itself to be true", you are giving a logical reason to accept an axiom. Now, that seems perfectly reasonable, except when the axiom you are attempting to defend is logic itself. If you are using logic to justify logic, isn't that circular? Didn't you tell me earlier that circular reasoning is always wrong and worthless? If so, then why do you continue to use circular reasoning over and over again?]

                  • Micah says:

                    it is true because it has SHOWN its self to be true

                    Then how do you know the axiom will continue to be true in the future? Or in places that you havent seen it ‘shown’?

  14. Tony says:

    one interesting comment Dr Lisle made really was interesting- when i said as a presupptionalist he talks down and insults people he claimed it was a “rude insult” or for you intellectuals an “ad hominem” but he fails to realize that its no an ad hominiem if the description is true-

    [Dr. Lisle: Tony, your argument is self-refuting. If indeed it is not an ad hominem fallacy if the claim is true (actually an ad hominem is the fallacy of directing an argument to the person instead of dealing with the issue - regardless of the truth of the claim), then you cannot accuse me of such a fallacy because indeed what I have said about you is true. What's more, you have demonstrated that it is true. Namely, you have shown that you do believe in God because you rely on your senses, on laws of logic, on uniformity in nature, on morality, and so on - all concepts that are only justified in the Christian worldview. You have demonstrated to everyone reading this blog that such concepts make no sense on your professed worldview. Thus, it is clear that you do believe in God, though you suppress this truth in unrighteousness.]

    you claim that people who dont believe in your god and spend years campaigning against your YEC are lying about the fact that they dont believe your god!

    [Dr. Lisle: Actually, God claims this. Romans 1:18-22 states, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,"

    These are people who truly believe you are wrong and you claim they are "suppressing the truth" that's nothing more a rude insult,

    [Dr. Lisle: According to you, it is not a rude insult if it is true. And you have demonstrated that it is true by continuing to rely upon God's laws of logic, His uniformity in nature, His moral code, and so on.]

    and wishful thinking because a iron age Jewish man cant conceive the idea that no god exist because of his ancient superstitions

    [Dr. Lisle: A bit of chronological snobbery here, but I'll move on. The ironic thing Tony, is that your belief system is the superstition. Superstition is a belief that is not rationally justified. And you have demonstrated for everyone reading this blog that you do not have logical justification for logic itself, nor for morality, uniformity, reliability of senses and memory, human rationality and so on. Your beliefs are by definition superstitious.]

    • Josef says:

      “one interesting comment Dr Lisle made really was interesting …

      I find quite a bit of what Dr. Lisle says interesting actually. If you would actually stop to think about what he writes, you might find that he is actually quite insightful.

      “when i said as a presupptionalist he talks down and insults people he claimed it was a “rude insult” or for you intellectuals an “ad hominem” but he fails to realize that its no an ad hominiem if the description is true”

      Let’s see what exactly was said:

      Dr. Lisle: You can lie to yourself or to me. But your actions make it obvious that you do know God.

      Tony: dont be redicoulous i am not lying you are just saying that again as arrgoant presupptionilist who enjoys talking down to people,

      Dr. Lisle: That is another abusive ad hominem fallacy.

      Actually, true or false isn’t what makes this an ad hominem. This is an ad hominem fallacy because the very definition of an ad hominem is when the arguer is attacked in an attempt to refute his argument. You gave no actual reason for why Dr. Lisle’s argument isn’t good; instead you decided to attack his character and by doing so, you hoped that would be enough to refute his argument. What you did is a textbook example of an ad hominem.

      “…you claim that people who dont believe in your god and spend years campaigning against your YEC are lying about the fact that they dont believe your god!

      You demonstrate that you know the biblical God. You do this by the fact that you rely on the preconditions of intelligibility that do not comport in your atheistic worldview but only make sense in the biblical worldview.

      “These are people who truly believe you are wrong and you claim they are “suppressing the truth” that’s nothing more a rude insult, and wishful thinking because a iron age Jewish man cant conceive the idea that no god exist because of his ancient superstitions”

      The funny thing is that in your worldview there is no such thing as “rude” or “wrong”. These only make sense in the biblical worldview. In the atheistic worldview, the universe is amoral—it’s neither right or wrong. The very fact that you are so upset over something that you perceive as rude or wrong goes to show that, once again, you’re adhering to a moral standard; unfortunately, it’s a moral standard that you cannot account for in your worldview, but yet, you expect all of us to abide by it. That is because you really do know the biblical God. However, you have exercised self-deception to convince yourself otherwise. In your thinking and in your sayings, you might deny God, but in your actions, you show that you do know him.

      • Tony says:

        no such thing as an atheistic worldview my friend

        • Josef says:

          Ah, the self-deception continues.

          • Tony says:

            ah the ignorance continues

            • Josef says:

              I hope people reading these exchanges will pay close attention to this. Notice that how Tony, instead of offering any logical argument to back up his beliefs, simply attempts to dismiss my arguments. It’s as if he believes just saying, “There is no such thing as the atheistic worldview” will make it disappear.

              Also, since Tony has already admitted to me that he is nothing but a time waster, and since he doesn’t answer questions he is asked (the tri-lemma or my question of how he can show that logic is the correct way of thinking without invoking logic [because he said that all circular reasoning is false and worthless]), I really wonder if it is even worth paying him any more attention. He is right about one thing though, the “ignorance does continue”… unfortunately that continued ignorance is from him. I can’t think of anything that is much more ignorant than simply dismissing an argument you don’t like.

              • Tony says:

                bah your no fun Josef- but here is something that is a review of Dr.Lisle’s book!

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvCVcZKvGYc

                • Josef says:

                  Wow, that was funny… and tragic. I don’t know if I have heard so much error and misunderstanding in a short video like that.

                  Dan Courtney claims that in order for Dr. Lisle to claim the TA is an ‘ultimate proof’ that Dr. Lisle would have to have knowledge of all arguments and have refuted them. Really? So I can’t truly say that 2 is the only answer to 1+1, right? Because until I try to use the other numbers, there is no way I can make such a bold claim.

                  Also, Dan thinks it is ironic that Dr. Lisle used children as an example of irrationality, since kids often are afraid of things without justification… and Dan’s argument against this? Simply that Lisle’s book uses comic-style illustrations throughout… I’m sorry, but what does this have to do with the argument? It doesn’t. It’s just a red-herring fallacy to take the attention of the listener away from the actual issue.

                  Dan also apparently missed the entire point of ultimate presuppositions being necessarily circular, but justified.

                  He has no problem with the concept that we must presuppose our senses are reliable. However, he has a big hang up when Dr. Lisle rightly says that upon presupposing our senses, the Bible gives justification for why our sense are reliable (because we’re made by an intelligent God). However, in Dan’s worldview, there really is no reason for him to believe that while he presupposed his senses, that his senses are actually reliable.

                  And the thing that gets me the most about this is that all the skeptics would have to do is offer a rational justification for how the preconditions of intelligibility are justified in a non-biblical worldview. However, none, especially not Dan Courtney, have been able to do so.

                • Tony says:

                  “Dan also apparently missed the entire point of ultimate presuppositions being necessarily circular, but justified.”
                  uh no there is a really why circular reasoning is called a FALLACY
                  “Wow, that was funny… and tragic. I don’t know if I have heard so much error and misunderstanding in a short video like that.” No Josef thats just a post hoc rationlization

                  • Josef says:

                    Tony prove that logic is the correct way to think without invoking logic. You’ve been asked this and the tri-lemma several times.

    • Tony says:

      thats not what supersitions mean Dr.Lisle, its is a pejorative term for belief in supernatural causality

      [Dr. Lisle: Not according to the dictionary. "superstition: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation." This fits your worldview perfectly.]

      • Tony says:

        well except none of those beliefs i had hold come from magic or ignorance

        [Dr. Lisle: Technically, they all come from the Christian worldview. But if the Christian worldview were not true, then yeah, they are all based on ignorance and "chance."]

        • Tony says:

          no – you trust in magic “goddidit”, and chance and ignorance “goddunit” and the like

          [Dr. Lisle: By definition, your worldview is based on chance and ignorance - e.g. everything in the universe is the result of mindless chemistry. My worldview is based on revelation from One who knows everything - not chance or ignorance.]

    • Tony says:

      “Namely, you have shown that you do believe in God because you rely on your senses, on laws of logic, on uniformity in nature, on morality, and so on – all concepts that are only justified in the Christian worldview. You have demonstrated to everyone reading this blog that such concepts make no sense on your professed worldview. Thus, it is clear that you do believe in God, though you suppress this truth in unrighteousness”
      again you give grandiose claims with no proof,

      [Dr. Lisle: I did give the proof. Namely, you have confidence in laws of logic, uniformity, morality, your senses, your mind, etc. - all things that you have shown are unjustified in your worldview but make sense in light of God.]

      God does not follow from any of those beliefs

      [Dr. Lisle: Actually, God is the necessary precondition for those beliefs. So the existence of God is proved if those beliefs are justified.]

      all you have shown is that you cant conceive of any of these concepts outside your own beliefs

      [Dr. Lisle: No, I have shown that such concepts would be rationally unjustified apart from the Christian worldview. Big difference.]

      so you invent these straw-men and post hoc rationalizations of everyone else’s rebuttals especially with morality

      [Dr. Lisle: How so? Can you give an example and support your claim rationally? Or is it just another question-begging epithet?]

      you just cant understand treating others kindly without a god telling you to do so!

      [Dr. Lisle: I'm all ears. Tell me what the logical justification is for why I should treat a bag of chemicals "kindly." Should I do the same with other chemicals in my garage?]

      You in fact think its “selfish” for someone to treat others kindly because they realize that they themselves don’t want to be treated that way!

      [Dr. Lisle: No. This was your argument, or at least it seems to be. Did you not give an example of people changing their behavior toward another person because they realized it would have negative consequences for them in the future? I believe we are morally obligated to our Creator to live by His standards regardless of whether or not it benefits us in this life.]

      this is actually a no true Scotsman fallacy, when you claim people “supress” the truth you just want people to get mad and emotional

      [Dr. Lisle: :-) Ah no. The "no true Scotsman fallacy is the error of defining a term in a rhetorical, non-lexical way to protect a claim from counter-argument. Based on your reasoning, I suspect what you meant to accuse me of is the appeal to emotion fallacy. But that isn't right either because I wasn't trying to generate an emotional reaction at all. I have a book on logical fallacies if you would like to learn about these things. It's called "Discerning Truth." It would help your argumentation skills tremendously.]

      so that you claim they “supress” the truth

      [Dr. Lisle: I really didn't mean to upset you. The Bible teaches that all people do know God because He has revealed Himself in such a way that they cannot escape knowing Him. But people do not want to submit to God, so they suppress their knowledge of God - they "hide it" even from themselves. Sometimes they are even partially successful in convincing themselves that they do not know God. Yet, they cannot completely escape this knowledge of God because they need God's laws of logic to survive. They need knowledge that their senses are basically reliable, and that their mind has the capacity to be rational, and that there is an objective moral code. A person may deny being made in God's image, but he cannot escape it.]

      [The reason I told you this is so you would perhaps begin to understand why you are acting so inconsistently; you have confidence in laws of logic, laws of nature, sensory observations, etc. even though you have not been able to justify them on your own worldview. You won't be able to fully understand the things of God unless God grants you repentance (1 Corinthians 2:14). But I showed you the Scriptures thinking that perhaps God will grant you such (2 Timothy 2:25).]

      the only thing you have shown is that YOU suppress the truth with your post hoc rationalizations of Chinese notions of morality.

      [Dr. Lisle: Again, it seems to me that your story illustrated that we should treat others in such a way that it benefits us in the future. But this isn't really morality. If you think that there is a different moral of the story, then please explain it. Otherwise, I will have to dismiss your claim as a question-begging epithet fallacy.]

      Even though you cannot realize it lets face it your thinking is so -euro centric that you cant conceive of anything else

      [Dr. Lisle: This is called the "genetic fallacy." It is the error of dismissing an argument because of its (alleged) source, rather than for logical reasons. Perhaps my thinking is somewhat "Euro-centric", but that doesn't make it wrong. If you think I have made an error in reasoning, then provide an argument, not an unsupported claim.]

      • Tony says:

        “I’m all ears. Tell me what the logical justification is for why I should treat a bag of chemicals “kindly.” Should I do the same with other chemicals in my garage?”

        do you treat the Sydney opera house the same way you treat a shack that hobos live in?

        [Dr. Lisle: More or less. They are both just structures. A person is more valuable than either because he is made in the image of God. But in the secular worldview, these are all just conglomerations of chemicals. Why should I be concerned about their well-being?]

        • Tony says:

          “They are both just structures. A person is more valuable than either because he is made in the image of God. ” i guess you never heard of the Anthropic principle?

          [Dr. Lisle: The anthropic principle is the fact that the universe is well-suited for life. This makes sense in the creation worldview, but has never been explained in the evolutionary worldview. The "weak anthropic principle" is the notion that the universe must be well-suited for life because we wouldn't be here to observe it otherwise. This is the fallacy of irrelevant thesis. It is the very example I used in my book "Discerning Truth."]

          Again this is a fallacy of division and composition

          [Dr. Lisle: You have here committed the fallacy of the question-begging epithet in claiming that something is fallacious without giving any rationale.]

          • Tony says:

            this argument of yours has whether or not we care about each other.

            [Dr. Lisle: No. It is about whether or not we should care about each other in an evolutionary universe. The secular worldview cannot justify objective morality.]

            Your argument has no relation to itself. It’s like “Humans are callous and cruel because firetrucks are red.”

            whuut?

            [Dr. Lisle: That's rather what I was thinking about your claims so far. I've asked about what should be (morality), and you continue to make claims about what is (nature). There isn't any necessary relationship between the two in your worldview. Why should I care about humans (one bag of chemicals), and not be concerned about the happiness/well-being of the chemicals in my kitchen? My worldview has an answer. Yours doesn't.]

            • Tony says:

              i have anwsered it over and over

              [Dr. Lisle: Where? You haven't given any reason at all why human beings should have objective value, or why that value is greater than that of any other chemical reaction. Your Picasso analogy was an example subjective value - some people like certain things more than other things. By this analogy, if some people value a can of soda more than a person, who is to say that such an attitude is objectively wrong?]

              you are just trying to invoke emotional responses, and again every time you make its argument you commit a fallacy of divison

              [Dr. Lisle: I'm now convinced that you don't know what the fallacy of division is.]

            • Tony says:

              EXACTLY whether what we are or what we are not has no relation to what is the proper what to behave

              [Dr. Lisle: That's not quite right. The Christian worldview can account for the difference between should be and what is. Moreover, I can make sense of an objective morality (what should be). But the secular worldview cannot.]

              so like you said- because doughnuts are tasty i am a Sith Lord

              [Dr. Lisle: Well, that's about as cogent as any other argument you've attempted to make. :-) ]

        • Tony says:

          and in case you don’t know these bags of garbage cant THINK, nor can they reason, or have feelings….. the fact that you cant realise that shows me that you have trouble grasping reality

          [Dr. Lisle: Two problems here. First, why (on your worldview) should the ability to think, reason, or have feelings elevate one bag of chemicals to a higher objective value than another bag of chemicals? When people are in deep sleep, and are not thinking or reasoning, or feeling, do they cease to have value in your worldview? In the Christian worldview, people do have objective value because they are made in God's image. And the ability to think, reason, and have feelings is indicative of being made in God's image. So the fact that you recognize that such abilities are somehow connected with intrinsic value shows that you do know God. In your worldview, it just wouldn't make any sense.]

          [Second, on your worldview, how do you know that other bags of chemicals, like those in my kitchen, do not think, reason, or have feelings? In the Christian worldview, I can know that they don't because they have no life/soul. But in the secular worldview where thoughts and feelings are merely complex chemical reactions, how can you know for certain that vinegar reacting with baking soda does not experience thoughts and feelings since it too is a complex chemical reaction? For that matter, how can you know that your thoughts, reasonings, and feelings are not merely baking soda reacting with vinegar?]

          • Tony says:

            the burden of proof is on you to show that those things can have feelings and such,

            [Dr. Lisle: This is the fallacy of "shifting the burden." In my worldview, chemicals do not have thoughts or feelings no matter how complex they are because they have no soul/life. But on your worldview, thoughts and feelings ARE simply complex chemical reactions. Yes? So why can they not take place in a mud-puddle?]

            and AGAIN a fallacy of division

            [Dr. Lisle: Again, this is a question-begging epithet because you haven't offered any evidence for your claim. So we can dismiss your claim as irrational.]

            “First, why (on your worldview) should the ability to think, reason, or have feelings elevate one bag of chemicals to a higher objective value than another bag of chemicals?”
            if you cant do any of those things you wouldn’t CARE what happens to you

            [Dr. Lisle: That doesn't answer the question. I'll grant that I care what happens to me. But why on your worldview should I care about other bags of chemicals? That's the question we keep coming back to, the one that you just can't seem to answer.]

            the burden of proof is on you to show that those things can have feelings and such,

            [Dr. Lisle: They are complex chemistry. In your worldview, that's what thoughts and feeling are.]

            and AGAIN a fallacy of division

            [Dr. Lisle: unsupported. Question-begging epithet fallacy.]

            • Tony says:

              ” But why on your worldview should I care about other bags of chemicals? ”
              again your digusting comments show that you dont actually care about people, and because they are humans BEINGS?

  15. Josef says:

    I thought this was an interesting response. In my view, you just claimed some stuff about logic on authority and expected me to accept it because it’s authoritative.

    Brian, I have never meant to imply that you should take what I say on logic because I’m an authority; I’m not an authority, nor would I want you to take what I say for granted. However, the things that I said about logic are things that you can easily check for yourself from a logic or philosophy textbook. Also, I do not believe I have said anything that either Dr. Lisle has not basically said himself at one time or another, nor do I think I said anything that he would disagree with.

    Also, I don’t think Dr. Lisle would want us to take what he says for granted simply on the basis that he has a PhD. For the record, my credentials are hardly worth mentioning (and I’m actually a little embarrassed to when there are so many people with much more impressive credentials than my own), but I do have a BS in chemistry w/minor in mathematics. And during my studies, I have taken mathematical logic courses and philosophy courses.

    I’d take a word from God on faith than a solid logical inference any day.

    What concerns me here Brian, is that this last statement of yours makes it sound like you think logic and the Bible are mutually exclusive. This is far from true though, because without logic, you wouldn’t be able to make any sense out of what you read from the Bible.

    • Brian Forbes says:

      This is a form of authority. I don’t accept whether a pattern is logical because a book told me it was. I have to agree with the logic myself. Otherwise, I’m just taking it on faith.

      I don’t think that at all. If God says something, it will either be in scripture already, or consistent with scripture. It’s one of my axioms – one I’ve chosen to believe is true… on faith.

      • Brian Forbes says:

        Experiment in formatting: failed.

      • Josef says:

        Brian, no offense, but it sounds to me like you just want the deck stacked one way. You’re the one who initiated with me and said,

        “Strict logic has either no axioms… or only axioms.”

        This sounds pretty authoritative. Why is it you’re allowed to speak as if you’re an authority on the subject, but those you interact with cannot?

        You also said,

        “Having a Dr. in front of your name (such as Dr. Lisle), people expect the instructions from authority. I mean, educated people really do know a lot of stuff. In your case, though, I haven’t submitted myself to be educated by you…”

        I’m not sure why you automatically assumed that I am not educated (though admittedly not as much as Dr. Lisle). But since I have not earned the prestigious right to educate you, I had pointed out that what I said in my post to you was either something that Dr. Lisle himself has said at one time or another, or you can find more info in logic or philosophy texts (which are written by doctors in fields relevant to the topics).

        But unfortunately, it seems that you have taken a stance in which even if I documented everything I say from sources most would agree are reliable, you’d just brush it off if you don’t understand it.

        “and I haven’t been convinced that your logic follows from my axioms””

        Logical arguments, unfortunately, don’t always convince people (e.g. Tony) but that doesn’t make them any less true. In fact, many people are convinced by irrational arguments (e.g. Tony again).

        • Brian Forbes says:

          I do indeed want to have the deck stacked one way. There’s only one true answer in this matter, and we should strive to have the truth.

          I’m not saying that I won’t have you teach me because of your education level. As a general rule, on some subjects, anyone can teach me, and on others (such as my position on the use of logic), you can’t educate me; you have to show me.

          On the all or none for axioms, I was appealing to your sense of reason. I expected you to think about it. If you disagree, that’s fine. You can show me how it conflicts with your view. Maybe you’ll change my mind.

          “But unfortunately, it seems that you have taken a stance in which even if I documented everything I say from sources most would agree are reliable, you’d just brush it off if you don’t understand it.”

          That’s exactly my point. It’s not that I wouldn’t agree with an assertion from a logic book. I’m saying that anyone that does is taking the truth of the logic book on faith. I’m saying that logic is important, and we should always try to be perfectly logical, but in the end, we can’t know everything, so we can’t know anything with logical certainty – that is, unless you accept that axioms can stem from faith. I mean, how much can you really prove beyond all doubt to a logical person? They have to accept most of your world view before you even start.

          I don’t know if you’ve ever seen it, but there’s an episode of Star Trek DS9 where the captain is digging up an orb. While he’s doing it, he’s seeing visions of himself in an insane asylum. He had to finish his story about digging up an orb. He was faced at that moment with a decision – to believe one vision or the other. And I’m not going to give away what he chose here, but the point is already illustrated. We make these sorts of choices all the time. Sometimes it’s at an instant when we have two seconds to decide, and sometimes it’s something we think about intently for 20 years. In the end, it’s our choice that matters, far more than our ability to reason.

          Now either you get what I’m saying and we’re done, or you don’t get what I’m saying. If that’s the case, I’m done :)

          If you want to talk about something else, I’m game. Send me an email – the address is at my site (click my name).

          • Brian Forbes says:

            Experiment in formatting: success!

          • Josef says:

            “I do indeed want to have the deck stacked one way. “

            Well I appreciate the honesty, but unfortunately what you agreed to was that you do indeed want a double-standard; one in which you’re allowed to speak as if you’re an authority on logic, but the people you interact with cannot (unless they have a “Dr.” in front of their name).

  16. Tony says:

    “I take this to mean that indeed on your worldview you cannot know that you are not a mud puddle. That’s my point. Knowledge of anything would be impossible apart from the biblical worldview. I think we are in agreement on that issue now. Yes?”

    That’s actually another fallacy of division first of all, its like saying the Forbidden City is the same as a straw hut

    [Dr. Lisle: I'm having a hard time seeing how what I wrote in that paragraph could be taken as a fallacy of division. What do you believe is true of the whole that I have incorrectly assumed is also true of the parts? Please clarify.]

    and second of all you cant know if you are a mud puddle or not,

    [Dr. Lisle: That's a tu quoque fallacy. But it's a good step forward, because it seems like you now realize that you cannot actually know anything on your own worldview. And now you want me to show how my worldview is able to escape this problem. Is that correct?]

    you CANNOT know if your thinking OR revelations are real or just chemical reactions in a puddle

    [Dr. Lisle: Actually, I can. See, you have tacitly assumed that all knowledge must come by sensory experience - which indeed would make knowledge impossible. But in my worldview, this is not the case. I can have epistemological certainty about some issues. If you will concede that your worldview would make knowledge impossible, I will be happy to go into more details showing how mine does make knowledge possible. Do you so concede?]

    i would have thought you knew better. And third of all unfalsifiable arguments are worthless,

    [Dr. Lisle: Ironically, this statement is itself unfalsifiable, which makes it "worthless" if it were true.]

    and its pointless to make them,

    [Dr. Lisle: Falsifiability applies mainly to scientific claims, not arguments. Modus Ponens is an argument that isn't really falsifiable. But it is very useful. So I'm not sure what your point is here.]

    and since you are the one that made the assertion you must show how chemical reactions in a puddle can mimic the ones that happen inside a brain before i can take this argument seriously,

    [Dr. Lisle: No, I'm not asserting that you are a mud puddle. I am a Christian, and so in my worldview I know that you are not a mud puddle. What I am asking is: how can you (on your worldview) know that you are not a mud puddle? In order for you to know with any confidence at all that any of your observations and thoughts are legitimate, you would have to know with confidence that your thoughts and experiences correspond to reality, and are not just chemical reactions taking place in a mud puddle. Apart from the Christian worldview, how could you possibly know that?]

    • Tony says:

      “Actually, I can. See, you have tacitly assumed that all knowledge must come by sensory experience – which indeed would make knowledge impossible. But in my worldview, this is not the case. I can have epistemological certainty about some issues. If you will concede that your worldview would make knowledge impossible, I will be happy to go into more details showing how mine does make knowledge possible. Do you so concede?”
      no you cannot you cant know if that revelation you got wasn’t just a chemical reaction in a puddle

      [Dr. Lisle: Sure I can. You are tacitly assuming empiricism - which is false. But on my worldview I can have definite knowledge. If you concede that your worldview would make knowledge impossible (and is thus irrational) I will be happy to show you details on how mine makes knowledge possible.]

      • Tony says:

        no you cannot you cant know if any of your revelations are just chemical reactions in a mud puddle

        [Dr. Lisle: Actually, I can. You are tacitly assuming strict empiricism, which is self-refuting.]

        • Tony says:

          again no you cannot know if your revelation is valid, whether i am speaking of strictly empiricism or not

          [Dr. Lisle: Prove it (without assuming empiricism).]

          • Tony says:

            again you cant- know if your revelation is valid, you cant know if its just a fancy chemical reaction in a beaker that you think is a revelation

  17. Tony says:

    “You are stealing from the Christian worldview to support ideas that make no sense on your own professed worldview.”

    you are a joke none of these people i quoted where Christians and they all lived at least some 500 years before Jesus!

    [Dr. Lisle: They are able to apply Christian principles for exactly the same reason that you can: they know God (Romans 1:18-20). By the way, there is no time "before Jesus" (see John 1:1-3,14). The Christian worldview has been true from the beginning, even though it was revealed in stages. And God has made Himself known from the beginning of creation (Romans 1:20).]

    ” But if other people are just chemical accidents of nature, it makes no sense to treat their gain as my gain. Are you starting to understand now? ”

    no i don’t understand , that’s first of all a fallacy of equivocation- there are no such things as “accidents” in nature,

    [Dr. Lisle: Equivocation is the fallacy of switching definitions mid argument. But I haven't done that. I have only ever used 'accident' in its primary sense: "an unplanned event or circumstance, lack of intention or necessity" in contrast with design. I actually agree with your statement that there are no accidents in nature, because God has planned everything from all eternity. But in your worldview, apart from God, everything in nature is an accident because it was not planned or designed. So, again, your statement that there are no accidents in nature reveals your suppressed knowledge of God.]

    and second the fact that you said it makes no sense shows what ive been getting at you just CANNOT conceive of Chinese notions of morality, that you mind cannot understand notions of morality without invoking Yahweh

    [Dr. Lisle: I have shown that objective morality would be logically unjustified apart from the biblical God. You have helped me demonstrate that. If you think there is some alternative, please provide it and explain why you think it justified morality. Your Chinese example demonstrates my point because it can only justify selfishness - acting in such a way that is likely to benefit self in the future. But that isn't morality.]

    “In the Christian worldview, yes, we should treat others as we want to be treated since they are created in the image of God”

    So if people aren’t created in the image of God there is no reason to treat others kindly?

    [Dr. Lisle: That's actually the fallacy of denying the antecedent. But I would say that if people are merely chemical accidents, then what one does to another is morally irrelevant. It would be no different than baking soda reacting with vinegar. Is it morally right for baking soda to react with vinegar? Is it evil? Those questions make no sense because chemistry is non-moral. In the Christian worldview, I have a logically objective reason to behave in a particular way toward others. In your worldview, you just don't.]

    first of all special pleading, no reason not to treat others kindly if your god wasn’t real

    [Dr. Lisle: Special Pleading is the fallacy of applying a double-standard. But I don't see how you think that is happening here. Consider a person who will likely never be in a position to help me - an old man on his death bed that I help in some way. Now, in the Christian worldview, my being kind to such a person makes sense. It is consistent with my obligation to God. But in your worldview, what would be the rational justification for why I should be kind to such a person when no one is watching? What is your reason?]

    ,second of all this shows that you don’t actually care about other people,

    [Dr. Lisle: I think the irony has escaped you. Yet, I do actually care about others since they are created in the image of God - my Creator. But if people are just chemical accidents (as in your worldview) then it would be irrational to care about them! It would be no different than caring for a bar of soap, or a mud puddle, or a tree, or a mushroom.]

    and the only reason you would seem to is because someone bigger and stronger then you told you- in other words you do it out of fear for Yahweh

    [Dr. Lisle: Now where does the Bible teach that this is the "only reason" to behave? Hint: it doesn't. There are lots of reasons to obey God. He isn't just bigger and stronger, He is our Creator and so we have a moral obligation to Him. He is all-knowing and all-loving, He understands exactly what is best for us, so that also is a great reason to obey Him. But in the secular worldview, there is literally no logical reason to behave in a certain way as long as you can get away with it.]

    • Tony says:

      “They are able to apply Christian principles for exactly the same reason that you can: they know God (Romans 1:18-20). By the way, there is no time “before Jesus” (see John 1:1-3,14). The Christian worldview has been true from the beginning, even though it was revealed in stages. And God has made Himself known from the beginning of creation (Romans 1:20).”
      again this answer makes no sense you are just trying to take credit for the work of non-Christians and claim it as your own, you claim morality is impossible outside of Christianity and i shown you wrong, so know you make a post hoc rationlization

      [Dr. Lisle: Tony, you have committed a straw-man fallacy here. My argument is that unless the Christian worldview is true, knowledge would be impossible. This is because we need God's presuppositions in order to know anything about anything (Proverbs 1:7). But since God has revealed Himself from the beginning, people have been able to have knowledge from Adam and Eve onward, even though many people suppress their knowledge of God. My argument has never been about what people profess to be true. Rather it is about what actually is true. Do you understand?]

    • Tony says:

      “But if people are just chemical accidents (as in your worldview) then it would be irrational to care about them! It would be no different than caring for a bar of soap, or a mud puddle, or a tree, or a mushroom.”
      this shows me that fundamentally you CANT understand my argument, so tell me say you’re painting your room, and you’re using a few old bedsheets to cover your furniture. When you’re done, you throw the old paint covered sheets in the trash without a second thought. Would you throw away a painting by Picasso just as easily ? They are both just paint on cloth. What is it that makes the painting a priceless piece of art while the paint covered sheets are just trash?

      [Dr. Lisle: Thank you for that analogy. I like it. Your analogy here deals with subjective value though, not objective value. A Picasso may have more value than bedsheets to some people. To others, (suppose we could travel back in time and offer both to the Native Americans), the bed sheets would have more value. They can keep you warm at night, but what good is a Picasso to someone who doesn't care about art? Now, would you say that the Native American of the past is morally wrong to choose the bedsheets over the Picasso? Yet you would (I hope) say that a person would be morally wrong to murder another person and steal his Picasso (to choose the paining over the person). People have objective value. Things have only subjective value. My question is: How can your worldview account for the objective value of people, and hence objective morality?]

    • Tony says:

      “Your Chinese example demonstrates my point because it can only justify selfishness – acting in such a way that is likely to benefit self in the future. But that isn’t morality.”
      uh no all it demonstrate is that you refuse to acknowledge the truth that this story teaches that people should treat others like how they themselves want to be treated!

      [Dr. Lisle: Only if it is likely to benefit them in the future, right? According to the story you shared, the rational justification for the parents altering their behavior was that it was likely to benefit them in the future. Their child was watching and learning how to treat them in the future. So it benefited them to behave in a particular way, knowing that it would come back to serve them in the future. But if they had no children, and no one was watching, why in your worldview should they not treat older people so disrespectfully? My worldview can answer this. Can yours?]

      You invoke even more special pleading by saying its only moral when Yahweh is invoked!

      [Dr. Lisle: No Tony. Special pleading is the fallacy of invoking a double standard; that's not what is happening here. I have shown that only the Christian worldview can give a rational justification for behaving morally when no one is watching. Other worldviews cannot justify why it is objectively wrong to steal/kill/lie if you can get away with it.]

      Again this also shows incredible amounts of not only ignorance for Chinese morality but also racial bigotry also you DARE claim that Chinese morality is based on selfishness

      [Dr. Lisle: First, this is only logical conclusion that can be drawn from your story. You demonstrated that it is helpful to self to help others under certain circumstances. Hence, the motivation for behaving "rightly" (in your characterization of the Chinese worldview) is that it benefits self in the future. If you have a different interpretation of the story, please give it and explain how you arrive at your conclusion.]

      [Second, I want to call attention to your comment about racial bigotry, because it makes no sense on your system. In the evolutionary worldview, why should the different "races" be treated equally as you seem to want? In the Christian worldview, yes, because we are all made in the image of God, and all descended from Adam. But in the secular worldview which treats "races" as different evolutionary paths, why should we regard them equally? After all, in the evolutionary worldview, monkeys, dogs, carrots, and bacteria are just different evolutionary paths from humans - yet you wouldn't treat them equally. Again it seems that you are stealing from the Christian worldview where indeed all people are made in God's image and deserve respect and dignity.]

      • Tony says:

        what you said shows you dont understand evolution at all

        [Dr. Lisle: Question-begging epithet fallacy.]

        • Scott says:

          Really Tony!? You stoop to this rather than answer his questions? It just shows that you have no rational answers at all.

          • Josef says:

            Unfortunately these types of “answers” are pretty common with Tony.

            I actually question whether it is even worth interacting with him anymore. He doesn’t answer questions he is directly asked no matter how many times he’s asked. He often continues in the same error despite being corrected, e.g. he claims circular reasoning is always fallacious, yet he uses circular reasoning himself (and him simply denying it doesn’t change the fact that he does). And to top it all off, he’s already admitted to me that he gives no thoughts to the answers he’s given, so basically he’s just a time waster.

            Basically Tony, as far as I’m concerned, fits the very definition of an internet troll. He’s just someone who wants to waste everyone’s time and attempts to get under people’s skin.

      • Tony says:

        no the fact that you think this story doesn’t each people to treat others like they want to be treated shows that you are badly trying to post hoc rationalize things,

        [Dr. Lisle: Again, your story only shows that people should treat others respectfully when someone is watching - someone who will be in a position to treat them the same way in the future. If there was no child in your story, there would be no reason in your worldview for the couple to treat the elderly with any respect at all. Correct? If not, what would be the reason?]

        the parents in the story where characters in a CHILDREN’S book so an example was needed for the characters to realize that treating others in a way they would not want to be treated is wrong.

        [Dr. Lisle: No, it teaches them that treating others poorly when someone is watching might result in them being treated poorly in the future. It has nothing to do with right or wrong.]

        Also no you are stealing from the liberal,secular, evolutionists worldview when you say all people are equal

        [Dr. Lisle: How in the world can you defend the equality of people in the secular, liberal, evolutionary worldview? People have very different levels of ability, strength, intelligence, etc. In what way are they equal? Are they equal to an ape? Are they equal to a squirrel? To bacteria, or a carrot? These are all products of mindless chemistry in your worldview. How is it that "some are more equal than others"?]

        it is NOT a part of any Christian worldview, to say it does shows gross misunderstanding of history

        [Dr. Lisle: You don't know your Bible. The Bible does teach that people have value to God since they are made in His image and are to be treated equally under the law (Deuteronomy 1:17; 10:17; 2 Chronicles 19:7; Job 13:8; 34:19; Psalm 82:2; Proverbs 18:5; 24:23; 28:21; Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Galatians 2:6; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25; 1 Timothy 5:21, James 2:9.) God values us more than animals (Matthew 10:31). So the Christian worldview can make sense of the moral fact that people should be treated equally under the law since we are all made in God's image, and yet animals don't have the same rights. But evolution cannot make sense of this. This again shows your suppressed knowledge of God.]

        • Tony says:

          “, there would be no reason in your worldview for the couple to treat the elderly with any respect at all”
          again that was just an example given in the story so that children could more easily recognize the moral of the story,

          [Dr. Lisle: If it is merely an example of a principle, and not the foundation of the principle, then the principle remains logically unjustified.]

          and again the moral is to treat other like how you want to be treated

          [Dr. Lisle: An astute thinker would not draw that conclusion from the story. The story illustrates that children emulate the behavior of their parents; thus, parents ought to treat their parents the way they want their children to treat them in the future - when their children are watching. Couples who have no children would have no logical reason to treat their parents with respect in your worldview. Hence, morality is still unjustified in your worldview.]

          • Tony says:

            “An astute thinker would not draw that conclusion from the story.”

            no only a person like you would draw such a conclusion you make these absurd claims because you just CANNOT accept my claims due to being a fundamentalist that this teaches that you should treat others like you want to be treated, so you get desperate and make such absurd post hoc rationalizations

        • Tony says:

          “But evolution cannot make sense of this. This again shows your suppressed knowledge of God.”

          again you have no understanding of evolution what so ever, and yet ironically this shows your suppressed knowledge of evolution.

          [Dr. Lisle: You do realize that your sentence contradicts itself, yes? "Understanding" is a synonym of "knowledge." So you've claimed that I do and do not have knowledge of evolution. It's also a question-begging epithet fallacy since no reason was provided.]

          And what you put out with those bible quotes shows you have very little understanding of Christian history, and as well ignore the parts of the bible you don’t like.

          [Dr. Lisle: For example? Try backing up your claims with reasons and evidence. That is what rational people do.]

          “In what way are they equal? ”
          Lets see know there is more DNA variation in a single group of people with the same skin colour, then between skin colours so it means that race plays no part in how competent, strong or intelligent one is

          [Dr. Lisle: Fallacy of irrelevant thesis. I'll ask again, in what way are people equal (according to your evolutionary worldview)?]

          “These are all products of mindless chemistry in your worldview.”
          this is a fallacy of division you might as well say because a jet enigine is a powerful machine, then all the parts even the lugnuts are also powerful machines that can fly!

          [Dr. Lisle: This is the fallacy of false analogy. Your analogy is indeed an example of the fallacy of division. But it doesn't connect with any claim that I've made. The statement "These are all products of mindless chemistry in your worldview" is a true statement. Why did you think it was the fallacy of division? Do you have a reason?]

          • Scott says:

            Again, I see no rational answers from Tony…….(Romans 1 on display) Wanted to say to Dr. Lisle, I have read through this forum as a silent bystander. I really am simply blessed, by the calm and logical fashion that you display here! I am convinced that this is the wise choice of apologetics. It is one thing to say a method works, but it is surely another to demonstrate them! Thank You!

            [Dr. Lisle: Thank you Scott. God bless!]

            • Tony says:

              no the only they these people have demonstrated is that they cant think things through, that they cannot realize their own absurdity, ignorance and fidelism, and Romans 1 is nothing more than psychobabble from an ignorance primitive out of his own delusions

              [Dr. Lisle: It continues to amaze me how many claims you make Tony that apply to yourself rather than the people you criticize. I also notice that you seem unable to back up your claims with reasons or evidence. You see, this is the problem with evolutionary/secular thinking. You have strong beliefs, but you don't have any good reasons for them.]

              • Tony says:

                the problem is here Dr.lisle you keep on asking questions when you dont need to or when it is pointless so then you jump up and declare victory

          • Josef says:

            …the moral of the story, and again the moral is to treat other like how you want to be treated

            Actually, in the atheistic worldview, there is no reason why we should treat others the way we want to be treated. In fact, in the atheistic worldview, why should we care about anyone other than ourselves?

            again you have no understanding of evolution what so ever…

            This is an ad hominem fallacy. What Tony has done here is attacked Dr. Lisle’s knowledge on evolution in hopes that this would discredit Dr. Lisle’s argument. And to make it worse, Tony’s claim that Dr. Lisle lacks understanding is an unsubstantiated claim.

            And what you put out with those bible quotes shows you have very little understanding of Christian history, and as well ignore the parts of the bible you don’t like.

            Just more unsubstantiated claims by Tony. How does Dr. Lisle’s quotes from the Bible show he doesn’t understand Christian history? Or how does this demonstrate that Dr. Lisle ignores parts of the Bible he (according to Tony) doesn’t like? Once again, it’s as if Tony thinks it is merely enough to make a claim without offering any evidence to back up his arguments.

            Lets see know there is more DNA variation in a single group of people with the same skin colour, then between skin colours so it means that race plays no part in how competent, strong or intelligent one is

            Unfortunately the implication here is that stronger and more intelligent people are better than those who are weaker and less intelligent. And there certainly are people who are weaker and less intelligent than average. So are we to treat them with less dignity? I suppose in the atheistic worldview, there is nothing wrong with that. However, in the biblical worldview, all people are made in the image of God, and therefore, all people deserve to be treated with respect regardless of their physical or mental capabilities.

            this is a fallacy of division you might as well say because a jet enigine is a powerful machine, then all the parts even the lugnuts are also powerful machines that can fly!

            Whoa, hold on there Tony. You first have to prove that logic is the correct way to think without invoking logic. You must prove it without using logic itself, because you’re the one who said that circular reasoning is always fallacious. So if you cannot do this, then you have basically demonstrated that you have no reason to trust logic in your worldview, therefore, there is no reason why you should expect that people refrain from using fallacious arguments.

            Also, yours is a false analogy anyway. As morality is conceptual in nature and is understood by our thoughts. But if our thoughts are chemical reactions, then Dr. Lisle is indeed correct that morality in the atheist’s worldview is nothing but mindless chemistry. The plan on the other hand, is very much dependent on the material universe and its tangible parts being in working order otherwise its function ceases.

            • Tony says:

              “Actually, in the atheistic worldview, there is no reason why we should treat others the way we want to be treated. In fact, in the atheistic worldview, why should we care about anyone other than ourselves?”
              there is no such thing as an atheistic worldview, and your comments make no sense what so ever, its a demonstration of your own ignorance, the fact that you can realise how absurd your statement is and the fact that you say that there is no reason if god doesn’t exist we should treat others like we want to be treated shows not only psychopathy on your part, and it shows that you cant think things through, that your mind is extremely compartmentalized, and is also special pleading and a fallacy of denying the antecedent,

              • John W says:

                “there is no such thing as an atheistic worldview” ~Tony

                “There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!” ~Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf (former Iraqi Information Minister)

              • Josef says:

                “there is no such thing as an atheistic worldview…”

                Again, yes there is. By definition a worldview is the way you view the world and the evidence in it.

                “…the fact that you say that there is no reason if god doesn’t exist we should treat others like we want to be treated shows not only psychopathy on your part…”

                Actually in your atheistic worldview, there isn’t anything inherently wrong with someone being “psycho”. And you so far have not given a reason why, apart from the biblical God, anyone should be moral. There is no such thing as “moral” if atheism is true.

                also special pleading and a fallacy of denying the antecedent…

                Ah, but you still haven’t proven that logic is the correct way of thinking. Remember, you must do this without invoking logic, because you said yourself that circular reasoning is always fallacious. So the way I see it, you’re either going to have to invoke logic to prove logic, therefore, you’ll have a fallacious reason (according to you) for relying on logic. Or you’ll have to accept logic arbitrarily, thus, again, a fallacious reason for relying on logic. So let’s hear it: either answer how you know logic is the correct way of thinking without invoking logic, or if you’re more comfortable with it, answer Dr. Lisle’s tri-lemma instead. I’ll post it again here so you don’t have to search for it:

                (A) logic is unjustified (accepted by blind faith).

                (B) logic is justified by something illogical (irrational).

                (C) Logic is justified by logic (circular)

                • the_ignored says:

                  Logic works.

                  [Dr. Lisle: Exactly. And since only the Christian worldview can make sense of this, the fact of the existence and properties of laws of logic is a wonderful proof of the Christian worldview.]

                  Here, talk with Stephen Law about it. He’ll be able to explain it to you better than I could.

                  http://stephenlaw.blogspot.ca/

                  [Dr. Lisle: I couldn't find anything here that would account for the existence and properties of laws of logic apart from the Christian worldview.]

                  As for “atheist worldview”? Please. After the non-belief in any god, it’s pretty much up in the air.

                  [Dr. Lisle: Yes. And since the existence of God is the necessary precondition for laws of logic, no atheistic worldview can make sense of the existence and properties of laws of logic.]

                  There’s no coherent book or set of rules on what atheists are supposed to do. (other than the odd ones made by xians like Ray Comfort who try to set up strawmen)

                  [Dr. Lisle: This seems like you are conceding that there is no objective moral code in an atheistic worldview. If so, then I agree. Only the Christian worldview can account for the existence of an objective moral standard.]

                  • the_ignored says:

                    Huh? What does the xian worldview have to say about logic at all?

                    [Dr. Lisle: The Christian worldview explains why laws of logic exist and why they have the properties they do, why the mind can learn them, and why the physical universe obeys them. Can your worldview do that? I didn't think so.]

                    Where do you get the idea that your worldview has anything to do with logic?

                    [Dr. Lisle: Proverbs 1:7, Colossians 2:3, Romans 1:18-20. Apart from the Christian God, why would there be laws of logic, and why would they have the properties that they have? You are stealing these principles from the Christian worldview, without really giving it any thought.]

                    The greeks have a stronger case for that claim than you do.

                    [Dr. Lisle: Why? Because they wrote some of them down? That's a bit like saying, "Isaac Newton is responsible for gravity. Before him, everyone was just floating around. After all, Newton was the first to write down the law of gravity." But wouldn't that argument be rather silly? There is a whopping big difference between the reason for a law and the discovery of a law.]

                    About morality: All I see is that the xian worldview is a sociopathic one where caring about others, society in general are not motivators for you. You need god to tell you right from wrong.

                    [Dr. Lisle: Apart from God, how would you know "right" from "wrong?" What do those terms even mean in an atheistic universe? You may want to look at some of the other conversations we've had on this blog.]

                    Problem is when god tells you to kill people as he has done many times in the OT.

                    [Dr. Lisle: On your worldview, why would that be wrong? For that matter, why would anything be wrong?]

                    You do not have an objective moral standard.

                    [Dr. Lisle: You are speaking of yourself. I do have an objective moral standard: GOD.]

                    For instance: baby-killing is OK if god orders it, is it not? William Lane Craig seems to think so.

                    [Dr. Lisle: In the Christian worldview, God can take His creations to glory when He wishes to do so. But in the secular worldview, aren't babies just one chemical accident of many? Why in your worldview would they have any objective value at all? I'm glad you are concerned for babies. But that concern only makes sense in the Christian worldview.]

                    You people have an inconsistent, subjective moral standard mixed with a lot of self-righteousness.

                    [Dr. Lisle: You seem to be projecting. I have an objective moral standard - God. What is yours? And can you defend it rationally? (I.e. do you have a good objective reason for why people ought to behave in a particular way? And who decides what that way should be?)]

                    • the_ignored says:

                      Forgot to say that the greeks actually formulated the laws of logic, the bible does not.

                      [Dr. Lisle: Isaac Newton actually formulated the law of gravity. But that doesn't explain why there is a law of gravity. Apart from Christianity, how can anyone account for the existence and properties of laws of logic?]

                    • Micah says:

                      Okay….not a whole lot of time here so i will just say a quick thing here:

                      The greeks could not have created the laws of logic, if that were the case then that means no one could have behaved logically before the greeks. Which of course isn’t true. Laws of logic predate the greeks. In fact, laws of logic cannot be a creation of any human, if they were then that means laws of logic would not be a standard EVERYONE must follow….they would be arbitrary if they were just based on mans opinion. People could argue however they wanted and reason however they wanted. Laws of logic would be subject to change at the whim of humans. This would render logical debate useless…

            • Tony says:

              “But if our thoughts are chemical reactions, then Dr. Lisle is indeed correct that morality in the atheist’s worldview is nothing but mindless chemistry.”
              fallacy of division, again your analogy is a false analogy,just because individual parts of a thing do not have certain property it doesnt mean if a combination of those things lack those properties and the fact that you cannot understand axioms shows that both your and Lisle need to learn what they are
              “However, in the biblical worldview, all people are made in the image of God, and therefore, all people deserve to be treated with respect regardless of their physical or mental capabilities.”
              that’s not what the bible says- see the part in Leviticus about approaching the altar of Yahweh and we have been through this, you should treat others like you want to be treated, to deny so would be absurd which is what your arguments are, i mean i have you guys arguing in brutal, fidelistic circles and you cant even realize it! its so funny! why else do you think i stick around?

              • Tony says:

                oh and Dr.Lisle could you refrain from trying to anwser these posts? despite how funny they turn out to be, I would like a response from Josef and read about what he thinks

                • Josef says:

                  “oh and Dr.Lisle could you refrain from trying to anwser these posts? despite how funny they turn out to be, I would like a response from Josef and read about what he thinks

                  That’s funny that Tony would “like a response” when I’ve asked him several times (I really don’t even know how many times now) to answer the simple question of proving logic without invoking logic.

                  Dr. Lisle has also asked Tony on several occasions to answer the tri-lemma, but he’s ignored all requests.

              • Scott says:

                I think you stick around because you know the God of the Bible deep down! But you are trapped in a box of your own making Tony, and rather than admit the lie, your pride wells up inside you keeping you from the Truth. You have been exposed as being nonrational, and it troubles you deeply. You come in day after day full of pride thinking yourself to be wise, but unable to express logical reasons for why you believe what you believe. You have to resort to responses like “you have no understanding of evolution what so ever” They make you feel better, like you have won some sort of ground. (But you have not) What you should really do is answer the questions. I am glad that you come here day after day!! I hope one day soon that box that you have made for yourself will be set aside for what it is, a lie.

                • Tony says:

                  “I think you stick around because you know the God of the Bible deep down! ”
                  no its because its funny and it good material for a comedy website
                  ” You have been exposed as being nonrational, and it troubles you deeply”
                  your funny, no the only one that is not rational is YOU and Dr.Lisle for not beng able to see the bigger picture of things and as well conistainly commit fallacies of divison and equvication
                  ” What you should really do is answer the questions.” i have and all you guys just ignore them with your fidelism ” But you are trapped in a box of your own making Tony, and rather than admit the lie, your pride wells up inside you keeping you from the Truth. ”
                  no you are trapped in a box of your own making and you just try to make insult people to make yourself feel good

                • Tony says:

                  “They make you feel better, like you have won some sort of ground. ”
                  but you guys DON’T have a grasp of evolution and i feel that when i try to explain it to you well you will still misunderstand it no matter what

                  • Josef says:

                    ” i feel that when i try to explain it to you well you will still misunderstand it no matter what”

                    Wow, that’s ironic.

          • Tony says:

            ” I’ll ask again, in what way are people equal (according to your evolutionary worldview)?]”
            In case you dont know- people are equal before the law since after all they are all human

            [Dr. Lisle: That doesn't follow unless you are stealing from the Christian worldview. Yes, we are all made in God's image and therefore have rights and are equal before the law by God's decree. But in the evolutionary worldview your logic doesn't follow. It doesn't follow that when two things are in the same category (Joe and Steve are both humans) that they should be treated equally before the law. After all, Joe and a dog are both mammals; do they have equal rights under the law? Steve and a carrot are both biological beings; are they to be treated equally under the law? Why do you draw the line at "human" and not phylum, gender, hair color, or age? That seems rather arbitrary.]

            ,it was traditional to believe that Africans were the product of the mark of ham and was believed by many Christian denominations well into the middle of the 20th century.

            [Dr. Lisle: This is the fallacy of irrelevant thesis because the issue at hand is whether the Bible or evolution can make more sense of human equality - not what people have misrepresented the Bible to say. (There is no "mark of Ham" in Scripture, nor a curse of Ham.) In the Scriptural worldview, there is no such thing as "race", except the human race and we are all descended from Adam (Acts 17:26) and are equal under the law. I won't repeat the verses here since I shared them previously.]

            If it weren’t for the rise of biology through evolution and knowledge that ideas of human ‘race’ are really not scientific whatsoever, you would likely still be treating blacks as second class human beings.

            [Dr. Lisle: First, the rise of biology has nothing to do with evolution. (Can you think of any development in biology that was predicated on evolutionary beliefs that is inconsistent with creation and variation within a kind?) It may interest you to learn that belief in evolution actually fueled racism tremendously in the past century. Take a look at the subtitle for Darwin's famous book and you'll see the beginnings of this. The African man Ota Benga was even captured and put on exhibit at the Bronx Zoo in 1906 due to the evolutionary belief that his race was closer to the ape than Caucasians.]

            [If a Christian acts in a racist fashion, he is being inconsistent with his professed worldview since the Bible teaches that all people are equal under the law. But if an evolutionist behaves in a racist fashion, he is being consistent with his belief that evolution has resulted in many different creatures, some higher than others.]

            • 羅漢獅子 says:

              “it may interest you to learn that belief in evolution actually fueled racism tremendously in the past century.”
              it did not this shows you don’t understand evolution at all,that you dont know what you are talking about, this the same patheic excuse of drivel that people at AIG pass on the world “race” in Darwin’s book didnt mean what you think it means, a bait-n-switch fallacy, claiming evolution fueled racism is absurd
              The idea that “more evolved” means superior. This phrase is actually rarely used in proper biology as it is very dependent on local environmental conditions, as, really, this would mean that a particular species or subspecies is better adapted to those conditions than whatever it is being compared with, due to it having exhibited a greater number of mutations in a certain timeframe. As an example, humans have evolved quite recently. Their evolutionary history is quite dynamic, evolving from small, rodent-like creatures in some 65 million years. But, say, jellyfish, haven’t evolved much for hundreds of millions of years. There have been far, far fewer mutations in the jellyfish ancestry than in that of humans. One could say humans are “more evolved” than jellyfish. However, drop both in the sea, and it is the jellyfish that becomes the superior creature: it needs no artificial breathing apparatus, it requires no diving goggles, it is a successful hunter. It is, in this context, far superior to humans, despite it being the “less evolved” of the two.
              The idea that “racial purity” advances evolution. It is, in fact, more or less the exact opposite — the more genetic diversity is increased, by genetic material being added to a given population either through mutation or racial mixing, the more likely there will be an advantageous genetic feature. In evolutionary biology, this is actually known as gene flow. this argument of yours seems to be a combination of the association fallacy and the argument from adverse consequences fallacy.As well so-called “scientific creationism” preceded Darwin’s theory of evolution, and it was the “scientific creationist” that actually introduced “racism” into the field of biology, not Darwin or the theory of evolution. Darwin actually refuted the claims of the creationist racists,the claim that white people were the ‘pinnacle’ of evolution goes against the very theory of evolution itself, where a life-form is never the ‘perfect’ life-form except in terms of the environment and environmental conditions it is adapted to; only a raving idiot would think that calling a certain race the “the pinnacle of evolutionary development” or more “evolved” than others
              ” But if an evolutionist behaves in a racist fashion, he is being consistent with his belief that evolution has resulted in many different creatures, some higher than others.”
              no evolution refuted racism
              “If a Christian acts in a racist fashion, he is being inconsistent with his professed worldview since the Bible teaches that all people are equal under the law. ”
              no the bible teaches racism, Christians just made this claim up in the 1960s to avoid humliation

              • Brian Forbes says:

                I have mentioned my foster kid before on this blog. She’s black. Something that I would never have thought would be a concern came up a couple weeks back. It turns out, some black people are offended when white people give them things with monkeys on them. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why. What angers me is that such an awesome and cute creature as a monkey has been taken over by evolutionists to claim racial superiority over anyone who is dark of skin. You can claim all day that evolution doesn’t produce racism, but I’m smart enough to see through it. Perhaps you think that school testing doesn’t produce pride? Maybe you think insults don’t produce discouragement. There’s a direct cause/effect here, and denial is dumb.

                • Rakhan shishi says:

                  Did you even read all that was written? It clears shows evolution has nothing to do with racism.the claim that certian races are better then others goes against evolution itself.And no it was creationists who first claimed that blacks where closer related to monkeys than to other humans

                • Rakhan shishi says:

                  There is no cause and effect between evolution and racism to say so is absurd you are the only one in denial even after so much evidence to the contrary was shown! No you are not smart enough to see throu ken hams absurd lies.

                  • Josef says:

                    Wow sounds like someone has his head in the sand.

                    Let’s see, the full title of Darwin’s published work was, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”

                    Oh yeah it definitely had nothing to do with fueling racism, right?

                    Or how about this one from holocaustcenter[dot]org: “Der Stürmer also regularly featured cartoons of Jews in which they were caricaturized as hooked-nosed and ape-like.”

                    Or how about this one concerning Ota Benga (just look him up on Wiki):

                    “At the Bronx Zoo, Benga had free run of the grounds before and after he was “exhibited” in the zoo’s Monkey House. Displays of non-Western humans as examples of “earlier stages” of human evolution were common in the early 20th century, when racial theories were frequently intertwined with concepts from evolutionary biology.”

                    It’s not at all hard to see how evolution “theory” gives justification to racism. Obviously if humans are descendants of ape-like creatures, it’s not hard to think that perhaps some groups have evolved a little further than the rest.

            • 羅漢獅子 says:

              ” First, the rise of biology has nothing to do with evolution. (Can you think of any development in biology that was predicated on evolutionary beliefs that is inconsistent with creation and variation within a kind?)
              Just about everything, like vaccines,the production or use of computer hardware of software

              • Josef says:

                “Just about everything, like vaccines,the production or use of computer hardware of software”

                This is the elephant hurling fallacy; here Tony simply throws out numerous unsupported (surprise!) claims to make it appear he’s actually answered Dr. Lisle’s question when he has not.

                • Bryan Fischer says:

                  Idjit. By race, he meant the birds. Your creationism is untestable and can’t be proven but evolution can. Boom.

  18. 羅漢獅子 says:

    “Actually, in the atheistic worldview, there is no reason why we should treat others the way we want to be treated. In fact, in the atheistic worldview, why should we care about anyone other than ourselves?”
    this is a non-sequitor, it (atheistic worldviews) has no relation to whether we should treat each other well or not

    [Dr. Lisle: Actually, a worldview is a network of presuppositions in light of which all evidence is interpreted. This necessarily includes moral claims. So yes, a person's worldview will determine how he or she thinks that we should treat each other - otherwise it wouldn't be a worldview. In the atheistic worldview, concepts like "right" and "wrong" are meaningless.]

    • 羅漢獅子 says:

      also Josef you are admitting you believe if God didn’t say to be nice to one another it would be bad and immoral? your comment shows your absurd ideas

      • Josef says:

        (atheistic worldviews) has no relation to whether we should treat each other well or not

        Actually I partially agree; because in the atheistic worldview, there is no such thing as right or wrong. It isn’t anymore “right” for me to give to the poor than it would be to rob what little the poor have left. If atheism is true, then all actions just “are”–there would not be such a thing as “right” or “wrong”.

        “Josef you are admitting you believe if God didn’t say to be nice to one another it would be bad and immoral? your comment shows your absurd ideas”

        I’m sure you meant to say that it wouldn’t be bad or immoral to be unkind to people. But yes, if God did not exist, then what exactly is wrong with treating people like dirt? You’re simply showing your objections based on what appears to be your personal opinions. So if someone else had a dissenting opinion, why is your opinion the correct one?

        But the fact that you think it is immoral to treat people poorly shows that you are relying on an objective moral standard that you expect all people to abide by. The problem, however, is that the atheistic worldview cannot give a rational account for this objective standard which only the biblical worldview can.

        • Tony says:

          “But the fact that you think it is immoral to treat people poorly shows that you are relying on an objective moral standard that you expect all people to abide by. The problem, however, is that the atheistic worldview cannot give a rational account for this objective standard which only the biblical worldview can.”
          i already did you just don’t want to admit it all of your rebuttals don’t make any sense what so ever,the reason i gave already anwsers your question you are desperately making post hoc rationlizations because you know you just dont want to admit i am right

          • Josef says:

            Josef (in reply to 羅漢獅子): But the fact that you think it is immoral to treat people poorly shows that you are relying on an objective moral standard that you expect all people to abide by. The problem, however, is that the atheistic worldview cannot give a rational account for this objective standard which only the biblical worldview can.”

            Tony’s reply: “i already did you just don’t want to admit it all of your rebuttals don’t make any sense what so ever,the reason i gave already anwsers your question you are desperately making post hoc rationlizations because you know you just dont want to admit i am right”

            You already did? First off, where? Where you rebutted my arguments? Second, are you actually admitting that you’re the same person as 羅漢獅子 ?

            Besides Tony, I see you constantly throwing out “post hoc rationalization” and I have a sneaking suspicion that you don’t even know what that means. Tell me, what in my post makes you think it is a “post hoc rationalization”? I’d really like to hear your answer.

    • rakhan shishi says:

      “Actually, a worldview is a network of presuppositions in light of which all evidence is interpreted”
      that is absurd to say that all evidence is to be interpreted ina “worldview” is literally absrud and it shows that you nhave adopted not only a measure of dispear but you dont understand science or reality

      • Robert says:

        So, since there are no worldviews that effect how you see the evidence, that means that you agree with Dr. Lisle that the universe is young since he has shown the evidence for that. That should significantly decrease the contention on this site then.

    • rakhan shishi says:

      “In the atheistic worldview, concepts like “right” and “wrong” are meaningless”
      no such thing as an athiestic worldview

      [Dr. Lisle: A worldview is a person's way of thinking about things - his most basic level of knowledge. So when you say that there is "no such thing as an atheistic worldview" you are effectively saying that atheists don't think about things, and don't have a basic level of knowledge. If you genuinely want to concede that, I think we have reached agreement.]

      actually and the word right and wrong give themselves their own definitions!

      [Dr. Lisle: The definitions of (moral) "right" and "wrong" are unintelligible apart from the Christian worldview. It just isn't possible to have objective morality apart from Christianity because there is no rational justification for why we should behave in a particular way. You've shown us that.]

      You are absurd Dr.Lisle and your desperate post hoc rationlizations get more funnier by the day!

      [Dr. Lisle: Are you familiar with the expression "the pot calling the kettle black"?]

      • Josef says:

        Tony, changing your name to make it look like there is someone else who agrees with you doesn’t make your arguments any more cogent.

      • Robert says:

        And how did you determine that Dr. Lisle arrived at the wrong conclusion of right and wrong?

        • Tony says:

          look at the definitions of the word right and wrong, and you will find out

          • Robert says:

            What criteria would you look at to make sure the definition was correct?

            • 羅漢獅子 says:

              by definition the definitions of right and wrong are correct

              [Dr. Lisle: Hi Tony. Did you know that when you post here it records your IP address? Any way, you understand of course that we are discussing moral right and wrong, yes? And you have not been able to account for objective morality on your worldview.]

              • Robert says:

                Right: 1: righteous, upright 2: being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper 3: conforming to facts or truth : correct

                Wrong: 1: not according to the moral standard : sinful, immoral 2: not right or proper according to a code, standard, or convention : improper 3: not according to truth or facts : incorrect

                So who determines what is sinful and immoral since the definitions must be correct by definition?

                Surely that can’t be affected by how you view the world (worldview)?

              • 羅漢獅子 says:

                yes- i told you treat others how you want to be treated

  19. Brad says:

    Deep time is an uncaring creator? Duh!

    But guess what. YOUR GOD is not uncaring. In fact, he cares in the worst way possible.

    [Dr. Lisle: When you say "worst", you are making a moral claim. But morality is meaningless apart from God. God cares about us to the point that He was willing to suffer and die in the worst way possible so that we wouldn't have to. And then you want to accuse Him of evil? Wow. Some gratitude!]

    His only care is to satisfy his apparently weak ego and torture the creatures he created to be imperfect as punishment for not being perfect.

    [Dr. Lisle: Hardly. God punishes people for their high treason against their Creator. When people refuse to live by God's gracious standards, when they spit in His face, rebel against Him, mock His Word, call Him evil, and continually refuse His offers of mercy, then God will allow them to pay the penalty for their wickedness. If God didn't punish evil, then He would be a corrupt judge.]

    What’s worse, an uncaring god, or an actively EVIL god such as Yahweh?

    [Dr. Lisle: Words like "worse" and "evil" are meaningless apart from God. Evil is that which is contrary to God's precepts. Thus, it is logically impossible for God to be evil. So when you accuse God of being evil, it is like a desert accusing water of not being wet.]

    You know the answer, but aren’t honest or brave enough to admit the obvious truth. Your god is more evil than any man ever could be.

    [Dr. Lisle: By what standard? Apart from God, there would be no objective standard of Good. What you are doing is essentially standing in front of God's throne and saying, "God, I'm going to show you that you don't measure up. Umm... May I borrow your ruler?"]

    • Brian Forbes says:

      Brad, I really felt pain as I read your response. I know that there is evil in this world, but you have to make sure you blame the proper things. Rape victims sometimes blame themselves for their rape. Why should they? What did they do wrong? In the same way, people who have been hurt in life will sometimes blame God. It’s certainly true that God brings pain sometimes, but the pain God brings is for our eventual good. He brought death to our bodies, for instance, so that we could be given new life through Christ. When evil people do evil things, God is not to blame. God is love. And God is smart enough to love properly. If pain comes from God, it’s a gift. If a senseless pain comes, it is not of God.
      I think you’d get a lot out of watching Howard Storm’s testimony. Search Youtube.

    • rakhan shishi says:

      “Hardly. God punishes people for their high treason against their Creator. When people refuse to live by God’s gracious standards, when they spit in His face, rebel against Him, mock His Word, call Him evil, and continually refuse His offers of mercy, then God will allow them to pay the penalty for their wickedness. If God didn’t punish evil, then He would be a corrupt judge”
      unforuntely Dr.Lisle i think you unwittingly provded Brad’s point

      [Dr. Lisle: Another claim with no support or logical reason given whatsoever. I wish I could say I was surprised.]

  20. Josef says:

    Rakhan shishi: You are taking the word “race” in Darwin’s book outta context race in the 19th century actually meant species like when Darwin called a cabbage a “race”

    No, I’m taking it exactly how Darwin uses the word. For example, in the opening chapter of The Descent of Man he wrote, “Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace each other, so that some finally become extinct? We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals.”

    Darwin did indeed use “races” when applied to humans as differing “species”.

    Rakhan shishi: and for that fellow in the human zoo-the wiki page said that racial theories were intertwined with evolution which means that they are two totally different things!

    That’s nice, but a straw-man fallacy. No one claimed that “evolution” and “racial theories” were synonymous, just that evolution gives justification to racial theories.

    Rakhan shishi:At any rate Josef I find it very inconvenient to talk here want to talk some where else the format is extremely difficult on dr.lisle blog.

    I’m just as limited on this blog as you are and I think it works just fine.

    Rakhan shishi: “And saying again one race is more evolved than others shows ignorance of evolution”

    Yet, another unsubstantiated claim. I would actually say that we should expect (just as Darwin expected!) some races to be a little more fit than others. The fact that biological science doesn’t show any significant differences between different ethnic groups actually does not comport with the evolutionary “theory” but the creationist theory instead.

    • Rakhan shishi says:

      Yes it DOES comport with evolution you don’t understand evolution I will say it again-evolution does not teach one race to be superior to another, as well since we all have one common ancestor-we are more or less genetically the same saying one race to be evolved than an other shows you don’t understand evolution, evolution never even used race as a classification, this is a naturalistic fallacy you are commiting. And keep reading descent of man, he said in chapter 7 that all men are of the same species and differences between the various “races” are minimal.

      • Robert says:

        Wouldn’t that be where “survival of the fittest” comes in? Conversely, If we are all basically the same “race” (common ancestor) and equal, wouldn’t that mean that killing a plant or animal would be murder?

        I know that if I was a plant, I wouldn’t want to be murdered just so others could eat or build a house (you know, treat others as you want to be treated); therefore, to be “moral” we should stop eating? Did I get that right? It’s hard to follow some of the shifting logic on your side.

        • Rakhan shishi says:

          No you mis understand survival of the fittest and what it means you are commuting a naturalistic fallacy, confusing descriptions with proscriptions , and the thing is if you we’re a plant you wouldn’t CARE if you we’re eaten or not

          • Robert says:

            Irrelevant thesis. Please answer the question. If evolution is “…since we all have one common ancestor-we are more or less genetically the same…” Why is it acceptable to kill a plant or animal for food, etc, but killing a human is not acceptable?

            • Rakhan shishi says:

              Because if you we’re a plant you wouldn’t care if you got eaten,or not as you have no mind, if you had no mind you wouldnt care how others treated you,and as well with animals because they are too dumb to understand these concepts, besides genetically most animals are far off from us

              • Robert says:

                That seems inconsistent with what you wrote earlier, but from what I have seen that is not surprising.

                So, basically what you are now saying, no “race” is better than any other, but if other “races” are too dumb and don’t know what is going on (not to be confused as one being better than the other because “evolution does not teach one race to be superior to another”), you can take advantage of them (as equals) and do as you please.

                These right and wrong standards of yours seem very arbitrary.

                • 羅漢獅子 says:

                  i am talking about humans only because only we can make sense of these things, as well with animals they lack the reason to understand these abilities, you are making really messy false equvications

                  • Robert says:

                    you are just saying that as a post hoc rationlization, when you realize that your arguement fails.

                    • 羅漢獅子 says:

                      no you are the one making post hoc rationlizations, you didnt even understand what i wrote, people are self-aware,and sentient, other animals and plants are not, you are just trying to make bad rationlzations as rebuttals

                    • 羅漢獅子 says:

                      also evolution has nothing to do with morality it is descriptive, it plays no part on how we should treat others

                    • Robert says:

                      irrelevant thesis and more post hoc rationlization.
                      Although, i will concede your point that evolution cannot account for morality.

                    • 羅漢獅子 says:

                      no you are right people account for morality like i said treat others like how you want to be treated, you are the one making post hoc rationalizations like with the aburd posts you had made, and more importantly when i was talking about common ancestors i was talking about HUMANS ONLY you tried to make a false equivocation by thinking it to include all life including plants

                    • Robert says:

                      So you are now saying that animals do not have morals. That completely contradicts some of your previous statements. You may want to take a step back and actually figure out what you believe (and who you are as you appear to be 4 different names on this site). Your positions keep contradicting each other. Good night.

        • 羅漢獅子 says:

          “I know that if I was a plant, I wouldn’t want to be murdered just so others could eat or build a house (you know, treat others as you want to be treated); therefore, to be “moral” we should stop eating?”
          lets try this again-real slow so you can understand if you where a plant you would have no mind- you would not care what happens to you!

          [Dr. Lisle: How in your worldview can you possibly know that? In your worldview, a "mind" is just chemical reactions. Plants do have chemical reactions. Thus, in your worldview, they have a mind.]

          So moral actions dont apply to you,because, if you cant feel, or have reason, or a mind you cant care what others do to you

          [Dr. Lisle: When a person is asleep, he or she cannot feel or care what happens. Would if be okay in your worldview to assassinate someone as long as that person is sleeping? You see, your worldview just cannot make sense of morality. You instinctively that people have more value than plants and even animals, because you know in your heart-of-hearts that people are made in the image of God. You keep repeating the Christian principle of doing unto others as we would have them do unto us. But that principle makes no sense whatsoever in an evolutionary worldview.]

          “If we are all basically the same “race” (common ancestor) and equal, wouldn’t that mean that killing a plant or animal would be murder?”
          Again i was only referring to humans in that part,

          [Dr. Lisle: That is the fallacy of special pleading - applying a double standard. on the one hand, you argue that when things share a common ancestor they have equal rights. On the other hand you argue that people and plants share a common ancestor, but do not have equal rights. Your thinking is dreadfully inconsistent.]

          and as well humans are different from other animals,

          [Dr. Lisle: WHOA! Where did you get that idea? In the Christian worldview humans are indeed different from the animals, and enjoy special privileges since we are made in the image of God. But in the evolutionary worldview, any distinction would be arbitrary.]

          you cannot apply human morals on non-sentient beings

          [Dr. Lisle: First, what makes you think that cats, dogs, carrots, and bacteria are non-sentient? What makes you think all people are sentient? The Christian worldview can answer these questions. Second, why in your worldview does morality apply only to sentient beings? This is completely arbitrary. But then again, you have yet to account for morality at all on your worldview.]

          • 羅漢獅子 says:

            ” This is completely arbitrary. But then again, you have yet to account for morality at all on your worldview.”
            I already gave you an account

            [Dr. Lisle: No, you gave an illustration, not an account. The example you provided could not account for why people ought to behave morally when no one is watching.]

            but you just dont want to listen so you ignore it, also what you said makes no sense what so ever, the problem seems to be that you keep asking questions when you know the answer out of either willing ignorance,

            [Dr. Lisle: I'm only asking for you to provide a rational answer (justifying morality, logic, human rationality, etc.) So far you haven't been able to do that. I have pointed out problems with the answers you have given. But you seem to just ignore those problems and give the same answer. That isn't rational.]

            saying that its arbitrary (i did it because i just felt like it) is absurd,

            [Dr. Lisle: It is the only rational conclusion I can draw based on the fact that you haven't been able to provide any rational reasons for your beliefs. You seem to have no objective reason for what you believe, which is by definition arbitrary.]

            saying that a distincition between other animals and humans being arbitary in evolution is again absurd,

            [Dr. Lisle: You have had plenty of opportunities to give a reason why you think that humans are distinct from animals. But you haven't been able to. How could they be if both were merely the result of mindless chemistry acting over time?]

            i think you already know the anwser but refuse to admit it

            [Dr. Lisle: That's exactly what I was going to state about you! See, you do know God in your heart-of-hearts. And you do know that people (and not animals) are made in God's image. We are therefore different from animals. We have more value to God than animals do (Matthew 10:31). But in an evolutionary worldview where all life is just a cosmic accident, how could some chemical accidents have more objective value than other chemical accidents? I think you already know the answer but refuse to admit it.]

          • 羅漢獅子 says:

            ” In your worldview, a “mind” is just chemical reactions. Plants do have chemical reactions. Thus, in your worldview, they have a mind.”
            this is absurd you know what you said makes no sense but you refuse to admit it,this is denying the antecedent, as well a fallacy of division.

            [Dr. Lisle: Evidence for your claim? ... No? Then we must dismiss it.]

            So then tell me is the chemical reaction in a soda the exact same reaction as a chemical reaction in a nuclear bomb? No in my worldview they dont have a mind. You might as well say because only animals have tails, than all animals have tails

            [Dr. Lisle: I think what you are intending to say is, "Only some kinds of chemical reactions are a mind. Others are not. Plants are in the latter category." Is that basically correct? If so, then you will need to specify which types of chemical reactions are a mind, and which are not, and how you know. And then you will need to show that plants have the types of chemical reactions that are not a mind. I think you will find that impossible to establish in your worldview. In fact, as Alvin Plantinga has pointed out, apart from Christianity, you can't even be sure that other people have minds. Therefore, how can you be sure that plants don't?]

            “You keep repeating the Christian principle of doing unto others as we would have them do unto us. ”
            its not a christian principle it is a Chinese one, and Mozi and Laozi made those conclusions in strictly secular contexts

            [Dr. Lisle: We have already covered this. Only the Christian worldview can make sense of objective morality. These other systems that you have proposed only motivate people to behave when they are being watched, and only if it will benefit them in the future. That's not morality.]

            “But that principle makes no sense whatsoever in an evolutionary worldview.”
            no such thing as an evolutionary worldview, evolution is a scientific theory,not a “worldview” you might as well say that gravity is a worldview! Now it might be a PART of someones “worldview” but its not a worldview

            [Dr. Lisle: An evolutionary worldview is any worldview that accepts particles-to-people evolution. I will grant that there are many different evolutionary worldviews. But they all have one thing in common: they are irrational. They cannot account for morality, science, laws of logic, or human rationality. So your response was the fallacy of irrelevant thesis.]

            • Robert says:

              I believe that is why he said evolutionary worldview rather than evolution worldview. (evolutionary worldview is “Because I believe evolution is true, … is true and this evidence means … which confirms evolution, etc”)

              You equivocated his words. It would be the difference between gravitational worldview verse gravity worldview.

            • the_ignored says:

              Lisle
              [Dr. Lisle: We have already covered this. Only the Christian worldview can make sense of objective morality. These other systems that you have proposed only motivate people to behave when they are being watched, and only if it will benefit them in the future. That's not morality.]
              That is your worldview, right there!

              [Dr. Lisle: Not really. God does reward those who do good. But I won't have to pay the penalty for any of my sins, because Christ did it for me. Only the Christian worldview can account for an objective universal standard of "right" - namely that which corresponds to God's commands. Any other worldview falls short.]

              There are rewards in heaven “mansions” and “crowns” and what not, and a lake of fire for those who don’t go for it. Remember “judgement day” where everyone has to give an account of everything that they’ve done?

              [Dr. Lisle: It is because God is just that He does punish sin, and rewards obedience. This isn't contrary to morality. Rather it is an example of it.]

              How can you be so lacking in self-awareness to not see this?

              [Dr. Lisle: The ironic thing is that apart from God, "right" and "wrong" are meaningless. Do you not see this? How can you have an objective universal, "what should be" if the universe is just an unplanned, meaningless accident?]

              • Brian Forbes says:

                My motivation to do right is not motivated by rewards. I think those are incentives given for newbies. I like what Kieth Green wrote:
                “I want to take your word and shine it all around
                But first help me just to live it Lord
                And when I’m doing well, help me to never seek a crown
                For my reward is giving glory to you”

                I freely admit that atheists can be motivated by this same kind of love, but it’s rarer there. I mean, look at the lives of the prophets, of Paul the apostle. Not many atheists poster boys who live that kind of life.

                • the_ignored says:

                  Brian Forbes:
                  My motivation to do right is not motivated by rewards. I think those are incentives given for newbies.
                  “For the newbies”? Can you back that up, and even so, so what?

                  It doesn’t change the fact that the bible writers wrote what they did, assuming that rewards would be a motivating factor.

                  If you truly are not motivated by any heavenly rewards, then congratulations: You are a better person than those motivated by future rewards.

                  Mind you, you’d have to have borrowed from atheist morality to do so: After all, there aren’t any atheists who do things in expectation of rewards in the next life, is there?

                  As for not meeting any really moral atheists, may I recommend you go to someplace like “The Friendly Atheist” blog and type “atheist charities” in the search bar there?

                  An example of an article there:
                  Christian Minister Who Hasn’t Heard of Google: No Atheist Groups Have Helped Victims of Oklahoma Tornado

              • the_ignored says:

                Lisle, you do realize, don’t you, that all you did was basically show that xianity isn’t a moral system?

                [Dr. Lisle: Christianity is the only system that can justify universal, objective morality.]

                You said earlier:
                These other systems that you have proposed only motivate people to behave when they are being watched, and only if it will benefit them in the future. That’s not morality.]

                [Dr. Lisle: If I reward you when you murder someone, and punish you when you are nice to people, it might affect your behavior. But this wouldn't be morality.]

                In response to what I said, you replied:
                [Dr. Lisle: It is because God is just that He does punish sin, and rewards obedience. This isn't contrary to morality. Rather it is an example of it.]
                No, Lisle: It’s an example of the kind of system that you disparaged in your first comment.

                [Dr. Lisle: Not at all. Punishment doesn't make something wrong. Reward doesn't make something right. A corrupt judge might punish someone for doing something that is morally commendable, and reward someone for doing something morally depraved. But that wouldn't change morality, would it? Fortunately God is just. He will punish sin, and reward obedience. But that's not what makes sin wrong. Sin is wrong because it is contrary to God's decree.]

                Unless you think that “rewards” do not actually benefit people?

                [Dr. Lisle: In this context "reward" is something positive that benefits the person.]

                Unless you think that god punishing “sin” means that he doesn’t watch or otherwise keep track of the “sinning”?

                [Dr. Lisle: He does watch and keep track. But this isn't the basis for morality. Do you understand now?]

                BTW: Jesus alleged paying for our sins is not really relevent here: If one is not a xian, then that “payment” does not apply to them and they still get “judged” for their sins. Just as implied in the original problem.

                [Dr. Lisle: Since Christ has paid for my sins, I will not have to do so. Therefore, eternal punishment is not what makes something "wrong" when I sin. Do you understand now? Punishment and reward is not the basis of morality. God is the basis for morality. But since God is righteous, He does punish sin and rewards obedience.]

                And a system of morality that’s based on the commands of someone is not a truly objective system.

                [Dr. Lisle: It isn't if the person is not sovereign over the universe. This is because we could escape to a region where the person has no jurisdiction. But God is sovereign over the entire universe (it's His creation after all). Hence, God's laws are necessarily objective.]

                Remember Joseph saying that it would be immoral to NOT kill a baby if god commanded it?

                [Dr. Lisle: Joseph is right. What God commands is necessarily right. Any other definition of morality is ultimately arbitrary and therefore logically unjustified. It seems that you want to appeal to your own subjective opinions of right and wrong - what "feels" right to you. But of course, this is not logical. Criminals might act according to what feels right to them, but that doesn't make it truly right. Our sense of right and wrong can be corrupted. God alone, as Creator and King of kings, has the right to make the rules for His creations.]

                • the_ignored says:

                  *ignore the comment after this one, I had one sentence misplaced*

                  I forgot to mention something Lisle, you said:
                  [Dr. Lisle: The ironic thing is that apart from God, "right" and "wrong" are meaningless. Do you not see this? How can you have an objective universal, "what should be" if the universe is just an unplanned, meaningless accident?]
                  You do realize that’s a logical fallacy when you say: “…that apart from God, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are meaningless” right?

                  It’s called the Appeal to Consequences of a Belief. Check it out on The Nizkor Project webpage.

                  [Dr. Lisle: I really appreciate that you are attempting to be logical, and point out what you perceive as logical fallacies. Thank you. But you have misrepresented my argument. I have not used an appeal to consequences fallacy, but rather a modus tollens argument as I will show below. And of course modus tollens is valid.]

                  It’s an appeal to the emotions of people to make them want to believe in your god.

                  [Dr. Lisle: That would be a fallacy indeed. But that isn't my argument.]

                  The consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false.

                  [Dr. Lisle: To be more precise, the desirability of the consequences of a proposition have no bearing on the truth value of the proposition. But the truth value of the consequences of the proposition does have relevance to the truth value of the proposition. Consider the proposition "if p then q." In this proposition "p" is called the antecedent, and "q" is called the consequent. For example, "If it is raining outside, then the grass will be wet."]

                  [Now, the desirability of the consequent has no relevance to truth of the antecedent. In other words, desiring dry grass won't stop the rain. But the truth value of the consequent does come to bear on the truth value of the antecedent. Namely, if "not q" is true, then it follows that "not p" is true. E.g., if the grass is not wet, then it is not raining outside. This form of argument is called "modus tollens." Of course, if "q" is true, "p" could still be false. (The grass could be wet for other reasons).]

                  Look at one of their examples. Sound familiar?
                  “God must exist! If God did not exist, then all basis for morality would be lost and the world would be a horrible place!”

                  [Dr. Lisle: As Micah pointed out, the "and the world would be a horrible place" is not part of my argument. And misrepresenting an argument is called the "straw-man fallacy." I do claim that apart from the biblical God morality would be meaningless. And I further claim that morality is not meaningless. Therefore, I can rationally conclude that God exists. This is modus tollens:
                  1. if p then q
                  2. not q
                  3. therefore not p
                  where p="God doesn't exist", q="morality is meaningless".]

                  [Since modus tollens is valid, your only recourse (aside from accepting the argument and becoming a consistent Christian) would be to argue that it is unsound due to a false premise - probably number 1. All you have to do is come up with some other worldview that makes it possible to justify objective, universal morality in a self-consistent way. That's what I've been pressing you to do.]

                  How can you claim that your god is the only justification for logic when, in defending your worldview, you have to rely on logical fallacies?

                  [Dr. Lisle: So my claim is actually a modus tollens, which is valid and not a fallacy at all. But while we're on the subject, how do you account for laws of logic on your worldview? In particular, why do they exist, how can we know about them, are they universal, are they invariant, are they exception-less, and how do you know?]

                  • the_ignored says:

                    One other point: If god had a reason to do something, then would not that reason be the true source of morality, not God?

                    The only way to avoid that problem would be if god did things totally arbitrary.

                    Which would shoot down your claim of “absolute” (or at least, non-arbitrary) morality.

                • Micah says:

                  This is a straw-man, the ignored.

                  First, the world already is a fairly horrible place. This is due to the fallen state of creation and mankinds sin-nature. There arent many christians (or even just people in general) who think the world is fine and dandy.

                  Second,
                  You are adding to our argument.

                  The fallacy of the Consequences of a Belief is where someone rejects a conclusion because it would result in a bad outcome.

                  So if you were to say to me “God does not exist.” and i then respond by saying, “Yes! He does! If He didn’t then the world would be a horrible place!”

                  THAT would be the fallacy of the Consequences of a Belief. BUT that is not our argument.

                  Dr. Lisle stated that apart from God right and wrong are meaningless. You are adding on to his argument when you add ‘and the world would be a horrible place.’ to the argument.

                  The argument is that you rely on an absolute standard of morality, and when we ask you to provide justification for that standard all you give us are subjective opinions. This shows an inconsistency within your worldview (embracing absolute morality but unable to provide an objective standard for said morality). Thus your belief in an absolute standard for morality is irrational, which is what we have been saying all along. Only the Bible can provide a rational basis for absolute morality.

                  Micah

                • the_ignored says:

                  Remember Joseph saying that it would be immoral to NOT kill a baby if god commanded it?

                  [Dr. Lisle: Joseph is right. What God commands is necessarily right. Any other definition of morality is ultimately arbitrary and therefore logically unjustified.

                  Uh, no. Right there you just showed that it's your morality that's arbitrary. Only it's not you, it's someone else who is free to change his mind about whether it's wrong to kill a baby or not.

                  It seems that you want to appeal to your own subjective opinions of right and wrong - what "feels" right to you.
                  Uh, no. I look at consequences. Thanks for the strawman of my views.

                  But of course, this is not logical. Criminals might act according to what feels right to them, but that doesn't make it truly right. Our sense of right and wrong can be corrupted. God alone, as Creator and King of kings, has the right to make the rules for His creations.]
                  So, “might makes right” then? Or is this Bill Cosby’s: “I brought you into this world, I can take you out?”

                  If your “absolute” morality is basically god doing whatever he chooses, then how do you explain verses like Matthew 5:48 and Ephesians 5:1 which say that god does have some sort of standards that he DOES live up to and that we are to try to live up to those same standards, even though we can’t?

                  How can we, really, when his commands are contradictory? Is it wrong to kill babies or not? How can that answer not be consistent yet your morality still be “absolute”? Absolute implies “unchanging”? Ex. the absolute measurement of a the reference object for the meter.

                  Criminals might act according to what feels right to them, but that doesn’t make it truly right. Our sense of right and wrong can be corrupted.
                  Corrupted? Let’s see: How often in real life does one hear of a thief complaining that the judge who sentenced him to die also sentenced pregnant women and children to die?

                  Let me know if that analogy helps.

                • the_ignored says:

                  [Dr. Lisle: Since Christ has paid for my sins, I will not have to do so.
                  Care to explain how a measly 3 days (actually, not even three full days) is supposed to somehow be equal to an eternity of suffering in hell?

                  Is this some "new math" or something?

                  Therefore, eternal punishment is not what makes something "wrong" when I sin. Do you understand now? Punishment and reward is not the basis of morality.
                  It is, though, what motivates people to be "moral" which I believe is what I had said before, or tried to anyway.

                  God is the basis for morality. But since God is righteous, ...
                  Define "righteous" please.

                  While you're at it, explain how it can be "righteous" to kill babies sometimes, and other times it's a horrible sin (in other words, why does "god" sometimes order babies to be killed) What is "righteous" about that?

                  ...He does punish sin and rewards obedience.]

                  So god knows that xians are at their core, motivated by self-interest then? If that’s not the case, kindly explain why he has a system of rewards and punishments in the first place.

                  • the_ignored says:

                    I brought all that up, Lisle because you were the one who said:
                    “These other systems that you have proposed only motivate people to behave when they are being watched, and only if it will benefit them in the future. That’s not morality
                    Since that’s the system xianity is also based on, your system is also not moral. At least by your reasoning.

      • Josef says:

        Rakhan shishi: evolution does not teach one race to be superior to another, as well since we all have one common ancestor

        Evolutionists also teach that apes and human had a common ancestor, so are you saying that apes and humans are “equal”? It sounds to me that you’re the one who does not understand evolution, as evolutionists teach that evolutionary pressures may cause one group to evolve faster or in a different direct than another group, i.e. common ancestry does not mean the descendents will be considered “equal”. Otherwise, if you truly believed that, then you should be fighting for apes and monkeys to have the same rights as humans.

        Rakhan shishi:“we are more or less genetically the same saying one race to be evolved than an other shows you don’t understand evolution”

        Straw-man fallacy again. I didn’t say that one race is more evolved than another, I said that if evolution were true, then we should expect that some races would be more “evolved” or further removed from their supposed common ancestor than others. The fact that they are not is consistent with the creationist’s model, and inconsistent with the evolutionist’s model.

        Rakhan shishi:he said in chapter 7 that all men are of the same species and differences between the various “races” are minimal.

        I’ll check it in my copy when I have the chance (at work now). But I gave you a direct quote which contradicts your paraphrase. But in the quote I gave, he definitely did say that the different races were different species. No amount of semantic gymnastics is going to get around that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>