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?

519 Responses to Deep Time – the god of our Age

  1. 羅漢獅子 says:

    Robert- no you are the only ones making bad post hoc rationalizations because you realize that your argument was extremely pointless and fails on every account of reason, it utterly made no sense to ask what you asked

    [Dr. Lisle: Tony, I have very much enjoyed our exchange. Thank you for posting and for keeping your comments (for the most part) cordial. Early on, you seemed to be putting at least some thought into the exchange, and I very much enjoyed seeing your perspective, and pointing out what I perceive as its weaknesses. But lately, you’ve mostly been making unsubstantiated claims, and have not been dealing with the material. Instead you have been claiming that others “don’t understand” or that they have made a fallacy or a “post hoc rationalization” but without providing any support for your claim. Hence, your comments have mostly been the fallacy of the question-begging epithet. This is generally indicative of someone whose position has been thoroughly refuted, and therefore has nothing rational to say, but whose pride will not allow him to concede defeat. And such epithets contribute nothing to the debate.]

    [Therefore, I will ask you to refrain from such epithets in the future. If you are going to respond, please actually deal with the points being made, and provide a rational reason for any claim that you make. In that spirit, I’ll give you one more chance to answer the trilemma that I’ve put to you several times. If you can’t answer it, then this will establish the irrationality of your worldview, and that will end the debate. If you can answer it rationally, then I will be pleased to continue the dialog.]

  2. 羅漢獅子 says:

    “. Instead you have been claiming that others “don’t understand” or that they have made a fallacy or a “post hoc rationalization” but without providing any support for your claim. Hence, your comments have mostly been the fallacy of the question-begging epithet.”

    no i see them more of as a butt naked assertion than anything else

    [Dr. Lisle: i.e. a question-begging epithet. Rational debates are about providing reasons for your assertions. To offer an assertion with no reason in a debate is to concede defeat.]

    ” This is generally indicative of someone whose position has been thoroughly refuted, and therefore has nothing rational to say, but whose pride will not allow him to concede defeat. And such epithets contribute nothing to the debate”
    your funny! no- its because those fallacies are so glaring obvious that to say thing more i would start loosing brain cells.

    [Dr. Lisle: If that were so, then it would have been easy for you to provide a reason. But you cannot. Hence, you resort (again) to question-begging epithets.]

    “In that spirit, I’ll give you one more chance to answer the trilemma that I’ve put to you several times.” well i am probably going lose a few braincells from reading your response but you know what, just to humour you, have you heard of what is known as an essential axiom? now that ive mentioned it you will probably try to claim God is one of those…..

    [Dr. Lisle: That doesn’t answer the trilemma. We’ve already discussed axioms. The question is how axioms (even essential ones) are justified. That’s what you were supposed to be answering in the trilemma. I even made it multiple choice for you, but you still can’t answer. As there were only three possible answers, even a monkey would get it right one third of the time. Since you haven’t been able to answer this simple trilemma that has been put to you many times, I will take this as your concession of defeat. Your worldview is irrational. This, of course, was my claim at the beginning. But you have helped me establish it very thoroughly. For that I thank you. But any further dialog would be a time-waster I believe, since you are unable to answer the hard questions.]

    • Scott says:

      What do comments like:

      “your funny! no- its because those fallacies are so glaring obvious that to say thing more i would start loosing brain cells.”

      And:
      “well i am probably going lose a few braincells from reading your response”

      Add to the conversation? These remarks are based in emotion and have no logical bearing on the questions that were asked. Please refrain from emotional pleading and answer the questions.

      • Josef says:

        It’s as I’ve said, Tony pretty much fits the description of an internet troll. He admits that he is just wasting people’s time, he contributes nothing to rational discussion, he uses multiple accounts (well in this case, just multiple user names), etc.

        • Micah says:

          It has been an interesting few months with him….but its getting pretty ridiculous now. At the beginning he was at least trying to answer our questions…..

  3. Good article. Right on target!

    DEEP TIME DATING ASSUMPTIONS HAVE DONE MORE TO DIVIDE CHRISTIANITY AND DECIMATE THE BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW THAN ANY OTHER FORM OF NATURALISM. EVEN THOUGH DEEP TIME DATING ASSUMPTIONS HAVE “NO VERIFIABLE SCIENTIFIC BASIS”, AS UNOBSERVED PAST EVENTS CANNOT BE TESTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, AND ARE THUS ENTIRELY BASED ON THE PRESUPPOSITIONS OF METAPHYSICAL NATURALISM.

    So this is how the deep-time dating game is played.

    THE “ASSUMPTIONS” DATING GAME.

    How to use ASSUMPTIONS to determine the age of the universe and the earth!

    ASSUMPTIONS are extremely important when you don’t have any solid facts to prove your “assumptions”. As noted by New Scientist in The Dating Game, “Figuring out the age of the universe involves a SERIES OF ASSUMPTIONS about its geometry, expansion rate and composition.” [Emphasis made]. Knowing exactly how and when the universe was formed involves even more assumptions. As acknowledged by Kiri Bielby in The Coreshine Effect, “Astronomers know very little about the beginning of star life. . . . So when it comes to the birth of a star astronomers have been left in the dark – literally” (Cosmos Issue 36 December 2010 p.16)

    Of course, everyone and his dog knows that the universe is 13.57 Billion years old, and that the earth is 4.5 billion years – and, by extension, the solar system is not much older. These dating ASSUMPTIONS are really ‘rock solid’, and send the Bible “literalists” into a spin, placing them into an impossible position to defend. As unverifiable “assumptions” can be dreamed up to cover any and every situation. Which is why “explanations” of “unobserved” past events, using unverifiable “assumptions”, works so well.

    How the dating “assumptions” game is done:

    The key dating element is “assumptions”, and the key word is “time”. Which you will “assume” has been uniform and constant throughout all “time”.

    The Tools:

    First get your bag of unverifiable naturalistic presuppositions, inferences, predictions, explanations, conjecture, and speculations out. Then get your Uniformitarian “assumptions” clock machine ready.

    Now its dating “assumptions” time.

    THE METHOD: First make some preliminary “assumptions” to exclude anything other than “natural” causes. As these will destroy your entire dating assumptions and methods.

    1. Assume that God does not exist, and never created anything.
    2. Assume that God was never involved at any time, in any way.
    3. Assume it’s “impossible” for God to create a fully functional universe.
    4. Assume that the natural material world is all that exists, or can exist.
    5. Assume that the universe made itself, and naturally formed everything.
    6. Assume that “science alone” can determine the true nature of ultimate reality

    Now, add your Uniformitarian cosmological “time” assumptions.

    7. Assume that “time” has been UNIFORMLY CONSTANT throughout all of time.
    8. Assume that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity does not relate to time.
    9. Assume that Relativistic Time Dilation plays no part at any time, at any place.
    10. Assume that Cosmological Relativity never affected “time” in any way.
    11. Assume that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, including the rapid inflation of the universe in less than a second.

    Now, add your “unalterable” Uniformitarian geology clock time “assumptions”.

    12. Choose only a naturalistic clock.
    13. Assume only slow processes involved throughout all of time.
    14. Assume initial conditions, set time at zero.
    15. Assume that there was no major factors or catastrophe/s involved.
    16. Assume nothing else has ever interfered with clock.
    17. Assume the clock was always same gradual speed
    18. Assume that you know everything about what happened in the past.
    19. Assume that there is nothing you don’t know about how things age.
    20. Assume your uniformitarian dating methods and results are confirmed.
    21. Interpret all data to conform to deep time.
    22 Ensure the same “assumptions” apply to all your dating methods.

    The ASSUMPTION Dating Game Outcome:

    You can now ASSUME that it all happened by natural events and material process alone, to the exclusion of God.

    And ASSUME that God is no longer needed to account for the universe or anything else, as it all happened naturalistically.

    Thus, you can ASSUME that the universe and earth are “really” old.

    More important, you can now ASSUME that you know exactly how the universe and everything else formed, including all living creatures, and even the Hawaiian Islands. Even though you have no way of ever knowing whether it happened that way, and not some another way. As it’s were difficult to “observe” something that happened millions and billions of years ago in the distant past.

    These “assumptions”, together with multitude of unverifiable “assumptions” underlying philosophical NATURALISM and DARWINISM, will enable you to engage in elaborate mental gymnastics and verbal semantics to show that the “inferences” underlying your many “assumption” are fully supported by all the other “unverifiable assumptions”, including all those above.

    NOW FOR A “TIMELY” WARNING!

    You will need to know that if any of the above assumptions are wrong – your dead.

    As you CANNOT prove that God does not exist or was not involved – YOUR DEAD!

    Your dead empirically because. . .

    Unobserved and unrepeatable past events can never be verified by the scientific method. Thus, your hypothetical naturalistic “assumptions” will always be based on unverifiable “inferences”, as there is no possible way of ever establishing that “unobserved” past events happened a particular way, and no other way.

    Your dead philosophically because. . .

    The delusion of NATURALISM is founded on an unrealistic and unachievable quest! As it is impossible to achieve a Theory of Everything while ever unresolved mysteries and issues still exist, as they do, and invariably will. Said philosopher Jean Paul Sarte, “A finite point without an infinite reference point is meaningless and absurd.”

    Thus, it is impossible for you to ever establish that life and existence is solely the result of natural events and material process alone, to the exclusion of God and other transcendent realities. As your insights will always be “limited” by “finite” human knowledge and understanding. Meaning, that you will never ever be in a position to know, that you really know, that you really know. In which case all your naturalistic assumptions have no rational or scientific foundation.

  4. Dyz says:

    The universe was created last thursday, including the memories and evidence of our lives before last thursday. People that believe the universe is older than 7 days worship a false idol named ‘not so very deep time, but just enough to fit my preffered creation myth’.

    [Dr. Lisle: I am familiar with Last Thursdayism. I know you meant it facetiously, but can you refute it from your worldview? In my experience, only the Christian worldview can actually disprove Last Thursdayism.]

    But seriously; I think we all know gnostic atheism is just as unreasonable as agnostic theism. I therefore conclude the OP must be a gnostic theist so (Russels Teapot); please show some evidence for the specific ‘god’ he speaks of. I’m not asking for someone to define my god(s) for me and then burn them down; I’m asking for someone to define the god(s) of the OP and provide evidence for it/him/her/them.

    [Dr. Lisle: Actually, God has made Himself inescapably known to all people (Romans 1:18-20). So you don’t need any more evidence of Him. You already know beyond any doubt that He exists, and you give evidence of your belief by your actions. As one example of many that could be provided, as you typed your message, you expected the words to appear on the screen as you have learned from past experience. In the Christian worldview, we can use past experience as an indicator of future success because God upholds the universe in a consistent and predictable way (Hebrews 1:3, Genesis 8:22). If God didn’t exist, then there would be no reasonable basis for such an expectation. This problem of induction as discussed by David Hume is inherent in all non-biblical worldviews.]

    Most atheists are agnostic atheists; we do not deny god(s) exist; we are just not convinced one exists (yet). (“not believing in god(s)” is not the same thing as “believing god(s) do not exist”).

    [Dr. Lisle: Since God has made Himself inescapably known to all men, it just isn’t true for a person to say that he or she is not convinced of God. Many people don’t want to believe in God, and they work very hard to convince others and even themselves that they don’t believe in Him. But their actions always reveal their suppressed knowledge of God.]

    Another interesting question would be what your position is on Thor (Scandinavian god of thunder)? Would a believer in Thor write a piece about how the electron is the false idol of the ‘atheists’ (atheists with regard to Thor)? Do christians believe in electrons or is that another false idol?

    [Dr. Lisle: I cannot speak for other religious positions. I can only point out that they are irrational because they cannot justify those things necessary for knowledge, such as universal, invariant laws of logic, induction, rationality of the mind, and so on. The reason that we are able to systematically probe the universe, doing experiments under controlled conditions and observing the outcome, is because the universe is upheld by the mind of God. So discoveries like the electron are possible only if Christianity is true. The real question then is: “Do you believe in the existence of electrons?” Because if you do, then it shows that you really do believe in God.]

    • the_ignored says:

      Since God has made Himself inescapably known to all men, it just isn’t true for a person to say that he or she is not convinced of God.
      Say what? How do you know that your god revealed himself to all?

      [Dr. Lisle: There are several ways we know this to be true. First, God Himself has said so in Romans 1:18-20. Second, people reveal their knowledge of God by expecting uniformity in nature as upheld by God, by relying on God’s laws of logic, by assuming their senses are reliable, by assuming their mind is rational, by appealing to moral absolutes. None of these things would make sense apart from God.]

      If that was the case, why were missionaries sent to the “new world”?

      [Dr. Lisle: To preach the Gospel. Knowing that God exists does not save people. Only when they repent and believe the Gospel can they be saved.]

      This leads to the “suppressing the truth in unrigheousness” claim that shows the level of arrogance of your faith. To presume to judge people’s character and motivations based on one fact: non-belief in god?

      [Dr. Lisle: Actually, to reject God’s Word is the height of arrogance – as if your mind is in a position to judge the Almighty’s Word. However, God is in a position to judge everyone’s character. It is God who claims that everyone knows Him, but many suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-20). If you disagree, then you are claiming to be smarter than God.]

      Many people don’t want to believe in God, and they work very hard to convince others and even themselves that they don’t believe in Him. But their actions always reveal their suppressed knowledge of God.
      Citations please.

      [Dr. Lisle: Romans 1:18-20, 2:15; John 3:19-20; Acts 17:28, James 1:22-24, Galatians 6:3, 1 John 1:8.]

      I’m sorry Lisle..but again: Where do you get the idea that your worldview is necessary for knowledge?

      [Dr. Lisle: Proverbs 1:7, Colossians 2:3, 8, Romans 1:18-22. Apart from the Christian worldview there would be no logical justification for the things necessary for knowledge, such as laws of logic, uniformity in nature, moral absolutes, etc.]

      The bible can’t even do basic math right in several instances!

      [Dr. Lisle: Unsubstantiated claim. Apart from the Christian worldview, there would be no justification for universal invariant laws of mathematics, or any reason to expect the universe to obey them, or any reason to think that the human mind can understand them.]

      There are scientific errors in the bible as well.
      ex): Matthew 13:31-32. The mustard seed is not “the least of all seeds” and it doesn’t grow into a tree. Since the language used was referring to the least of all seeds, one can not dodge by saying that he was referring to just seeds that were commonly planted! Why not say that directly?

      [Dr. Lisle: It would seem that you are unaware of what a parable is. Jesus was making an analogy about the growth of the kingdom, which starts out very small and will grow very large – which indeed it has. Why would you assume that “tree” is being used in a modern taxonomic sense, and why would you assume that “least” means “smallest” anyway? It seems like you really haven’t thought this through.]

      Face it…all your palaver about how your worldview is the necessary precondition for any kind of knowledge (because it’s your god that supposedly upholds the universe with his mind) falls apart in the face of those facts.

      [Dr. Lisle: As we have seen, your claims really don’t stand up to scrutiny. This is always the case with claims contrary to God’s Word. God has yet to lose an argument.]

      • Micah says:

        You really haven’t researched the answers to these questions too much have you? Unfortunately due to time constraints i cant get to it now….maybe later if someone doesn’t beat me to it….

      • Josef says:

        Dr. Lisle: > “Since God has made Himself inescapably known to all men, it just isn’t true for a person to say that he or she is not convinced of God.”

        The ignored: >“Say what? How do you know that your god revealed himself to all? If that was the case, why were missionaries sent to the “new world”?”

        We know that God has made himself known because God said he did:

        >>Romans 1:18-22: “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”<<

        We send missionaries because God has revealed himself to all through general revelation which is only sufficient to condemn the person, i.e. hold them accountable for their sins. But special revelation through the word of God shows them the specifics on how to escape the condemnation that they (and all people) deserve.

        the ignored: >“This leads to the “suppressing the truth in unrigheousness” claim that shows the level of arrogance of your faith. To presume to judge people’s character and motivations based on one fact: non-belief in god?”

        But you show you are suppressing the truth every day. Because you are relying on transcendental laws (such as logic & morality) that can only be justified in the Christian worldview.

        There is no basis for such concepts in atheism, so that shows that your beliefs are essentially on life support by the Christian worldview.

        Dr. Lisle:“Many people don’t want to believe in God, and they work very hard to convince others and even themselves that they don’t believe in Him. But their actions always reveal their suppressed knowledge of God.”

        The ignored: “I’m sorry Lisle..but again: Where do you get the idea that your worldview is necessary for knowledge? The bible can’t even do basic math right in several instances!”

        Because only the biblical worldview can justify the preconditions of intelligibility. I’ll tell you what, let’s start with logic. How, as an atheist do you account for logic’s existence?

        The ignored: “There are scientific errors in the bible as well.
        ex): Matthew 13:31-32. The mustard seed is not “the least of all seeds” and it doesn’t grow into a tree. Since the language used was referring to the least of all seeds, one can not dodge by saying that he was referring to just seeds that were commonly planted! Why not say that directly?”

        The “least” of all seeds doesn’t necessarily mean the smallest. The Greek word used for “least” here is mikros. And mikros is often used in the NT to not mean the smallest in stature, but the smallest in worth, such as in Matt 11:11:

        >>“Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least [mikros] in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”<<

        Obviously by the context, it would be silly to think that Jesus was talking about someone who was literally the smallest in the Kingdom of Heaven, but instead, the context suggests that Jesus was talking about worth or something along the lines of “rank”. And since a seed’s worth is subjective, it can hardly be considered a scientific error.

        As for the tree remark, it is silly to hold the Bible accountable to conventional modern classification systems used by biologists. Instead in biblical times, a much simpler classification system was used and went by appearance or function.

        • Josef says:

          Oh and another thing about the mustard seed that I forgot to mention is that even if Jesus was speaking of its physical size, it still isn’t a scientific inaccuracy. Because the context (which skeptics seem to rarely take into account) is about the smallest seed a Jewish farmer would plant Matt 13:31-32:

          >>Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, which indeed is the least of all the seeds;…”<<

          Obviously as a Palestinian Jew, when Jesus was talking about "a man took and sowed in his field" he is using an example that his disciples (who were Jews) would understand.

          So whether it was that the mustard seed was the least as far as its worth or the least in size, when taken in context it is not a scientific error.

    • the_ignored says:

      Besides all that I just said…how would you prove that it’s your god that fulfills all of what you say?

      [Dr. Lisle: Knowledge begins with the true God (Proverbs 1:7) – not some generic conception of deity or some god made up by people. It is the Christian God that can make sense of those things necessary for knowledge. Apart from God, it would be impossible to know or prove anything.]

      Can you do so without in some way already assuming that he exists in the first place?

      [Dr. Lisle: Actually, no. And that is the point, though you seem to have missed it. Without presupposing the biblical God, no one can prove anything at all. The reason is that there would be no justification for believing that laws of logic are reliable, or science, or rationality, etc. All worldviews must assume the Christian God in order to prove anything – even atheism! These worldviews rely upon things like laws of logic that are only justified in the Christian worldview. I have written a book on this if you would like to learn more. It is called “The Ultimate Proof of Creation.”]

    • Dyz says:

      [Dr. Lisle: I am familiar with Last Thursdayism. I know you meant it facetiously, but can you refute it from your worldview? In my experience, only the Christian worldview can actually disprove Last Thursdayism.]

      Actually, I can think of biblical interpretations that do not conflict with last thursdayism. A worldview does not prove or disprove anything.

      [Dr. Lisle: No. The Bible states that God created in the beginning (Genesis 1:1) – not last Thursday. So last-Thursdayism is not compatible with Scripture. A worldview is the interpretive framework in which all proofs are constructed. The Christian worldview takes the Bible as the ultimate epistemological standard. And this makes it possible for the Christian to refute last-Thursdayism. Can you do so within your worldview?]

      [Dr. Lisle: Actually, God has made Himself inescapably known to all people (Romans 1:18-20). So you don’t need any more evidence of Him. You already know beyond any doubt that He exists, and you give evidence of your belief by your actions. As one example of many that could be provided, as you typed your message, you expected the words to appear on the screen as you have learned from past experience. In the Christian worldview, we can use past experience as an indicator of future success because God upholds the universe in a consistent and predictable way (Hebrews 1:3, Genesis 8:22). If God didn’t exist, then there would be no reasonable basis for such an expectation. This problem of induction as discussed by David Hume is inherent in all non-biblical worldviews.]

      I ask for a definition and evidence, not for a quote from a fictional story. Actually, I did not expect the letters I type to appear with 100% certainty (unlike some believers, I am not 100% certain about anything). I am an adequate determinist.

      [Dr. Lisle: Regarding definitions, I am using the biblical definition of God. God is who the Bible says He is. And God does what the Bible says He does. Regarding evidence, you have already provided it. Your expectation that letters will appear when you press the keys only makes sense if God upholds the universe in a consistent way as He has promised in Genesis 8:22. I wasn’t asking for certainty about future events. But only in the Christian worldview can we say that it is even likely that sufficiently similar actions will (likely) lead to similar results. This is known as “uniformity.” The expectation that future events will resemble past events is only rational within the Christian worldview. The fact that uniformity is true is therefore an illustration of the fact that God exists. And since you do believe in uniformity, this shows that you already do know that God exists, though you verbally deny it. You have confirmed Romans 1:18-20.]

      [I also must point out that you seem to be very uneducated about the nature of the Bible. It’s hardly a “fictional story” as you put it. Even secular archeologists look to the Bible when they want to learn where to dig since the Bible has demonstrated itself to be historically accurate. Many of the cities that the Bible mentions (e.g. Jericho, Ai) have now been excavated. Others (e.g. the cities of the plains) were once thought to be fictional, until they were discovered on lists of ancient trading routes.]

      [Dr. Lisle: Since God has made Himself inescapably known to all men, it just isn’t true for a person to say that he or she is not convinced of God. Many people don’t want to believe in God, and they work very hard to convince others and even themselves that they don’t believe in Him. But their actions always reveal their suppressed knowledge of God.]

      You have not defined your god and you have not provided evidence for his existence. All you have done is pile on more unsubstantiated claims.

      [Dr. Lisle: I have defined God as the Being that the Bible calls “God” or “the Lord.” The evidence for His existence is that knowledge is possible. Specifically, we can know things through logic and science. Science is predicated upon uniformity in nature. And apart from Scripture there is no rational justification for uniformity in nature. There would be no foundation for science.]

      [Dr. Lisle: I cannot speak for other religious positions. I can only point out that they are irrational because they cannot justify those things necessary for knowledge, such as universal, invariant laws of logic, induction, rationality of the mind, and so on. The reason that we are able to systematically probe the universe, doing experiments under controlled conditions and observing the outcome, is because the universe is upheld by the mind of God. So discoveries like the electron are possible only if Christianity is true. The real question then is: “Do you believe in the existence of electrons?” Because if you do, then it shows that you really do believe in God.]

      You have not defined your god and you have not provided evidence for his existence. All you have done is pile on more unsubstantiated claims.

      [Dr. Lisle: I have defined God and have given a proof of His existence. You may not emotionally like my proof. But can you actually refute it? All you would have to do is show how your worldview can account for uniformity in nature. On what rational basis do you expect the future to reflect the past? So far, no one has been able to answer that apart from Christianity.]

      • Dyz says:

        [Dr. Lisle: No. The Bible states that God created in the beginning (Genesis 1:1) – not last Thursday. So last-Thursdayism is not compatible with Scripture. ]

        That’s merely your limited interpretation of a bit of text.

        [Dr. Lisle: If you’re going to play that game, then I interpret your statement as agreeing with me. Thank you for your support!]

        A first creation event does not exclude possible recreation events.

        [Dr. Lisle: You don’t know your Bible. The text states that God finished His work of creation by the seventh day (Genesis 2:2). So He’s done with creation. Exodus 20:11 confirms that God made everything within that six-day period. So this excludes re-creation of the universe.]

        [Dr. Lisle: And since you do believe in uniformity, this shows that you already do know that God exists, though you verbally deny it.]

        Just like you believe lightning is real, therefore you know that Thor exist, even though you verbally deny it.

        [Dr. Lisle: Here you have employed the fallacy of false analogy. God provides the (only) epistemological justification for uniformity in nature. But Thor does not provide epistemological justification for believing in lightning. I have a book on this topic that you might want to read before continuing this discussion, so that you are up to speed on what it is we are discussing. You seem to think that this is about cause-and-effect. It isn’t.]

        [Dr. Lisle: the Bible has demonstrated itself to be historically accurate.]

        And you call me uneducated about the bible? Seriously?

        [Dr. Lisle: And this confirms it. With all respect, you would do well to spend some time in a library, or take a class on this topic. Even educated critics will concede the authenticity of the Bible. Secular scholars will not deny the historical reality of Abraham for example. Or Jericho, or Ai. I gave evidence. You’ve just ignored it and given rhetoric. That is not the mark of rationality.]

        [Dr. Lisle: I have defined God]

        No you have referred me to a fictional story book that is open to interpretation.

        [Dr. Lisle: I’m somewhat impressed that you’ve managed to pack three errors into one sentence. First, I have clearly defined my terms. Perhaps you didn’t read my response carefully. I defined God as “the Being that the Bible calls ‘God’ or ‘the Lord.'” The reason I did it that way is because the Bible has quite a lot to say about God and His nature. So in order for you to understand who God is, you are going to have to read a bit. If you have questions about the nature of God, I will be happy to answer them if I can. (e.g. “Is God all-powerful?” Answer: yes). But I don’t want to do a disservice to God by defining Him in a way that falls short of His own description of Himself.]

        [Second, you again made the mistake of referring to the Bible as “fiction.” What is your evidence of this? I’m not asking for your opinions of what is possible, but actual evidence. I have already listed several items of evidence that the Bible is historical. It’s not a work of fiction. Archeology has confirmed many of the events of the Bible. You can confirm this by going to any library.]

        [Third, you said that the Bible is “open to interpretation.” But it really isn’t. We are not free to interpret words just any way that we wish. (If you disagree, then I will begin interpreting your words the way that I wish). There are rules of interpretation. There are rules of grammar and syntax. And there are rules of inference that constrain the conclusions we draw from what we read. If you are interested to learn about this topic, it is called “hermeneutics.” I can refer you to some resources if you wish.]

        There are almost more christian gods than there are christian believers.

        [Dr. Lisle: ??!! Perhaps you didn’t realize it, but Christianity is monotheistic – e.g. one God. Maybe you meant that different Christians have different conceptions of God. But if so, that is an error on their part; the Bible describes the characteristics of God very clearly.]

        [On what rational basis do you expect the future to reflect the past?]

        I do not.

        [Dr. Lisle: You obviously do or else you wouldn’t have bothered to type “I do not.” You assumed that when you pressed the letter “I” that the letter “I” would very likely appear on the screen as it has in the past. This is the concept of uniformity. I highly recommend that you read up a bit on this topic so that you understand what it is we are discussing.]

        Still waiting for your definition and evidence.

        [Dr. Lisle: I have provided both, and I’m waiting for you to actually give a rational response to the evidence I have presented. Did you not understand it? God, as defined in Scripture, is the necessary precondition for knowledge – in this case, uniformity in nature. Apart from the biblical God we would have no reason to believe in uniformity in nature. It would be unjustified. But there is uniformity in nature, and you do believe in it as evidenced by the fact that you can type. This only makes sense if God does exist. That’s my evidence. Now you may not emotionally like my evidence, but that doesn’t make it faulty. I want to know if you have a rational alternative, some way of justifying knowledge apart from God. This is what I asked for last time. And I’m still waiting…]

        • Dyz says:

          [Dr. Lisle: You don’t know your Bible. The text states that God finished His work of creation by the seventh day (Genesis 2:2). So He’s done with creation. Exodus 20:11 confirms that God made everything within that six-day period. So this excludes re-creation of the universe.]

          Where does it say “So He’s done with creation.”?

          [Dr. Lisle: Genesis 2:1-2 “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. And by the seventh day God completed His work which He had done; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.”]

          Where does it say “And there is no need to recreate stuff every thursday”?

          [Dr. Lisle: Exodus 20:11, “”For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.”]

          [Dr. Lisle: Here you have employed the fallacy of false analogy. God provides the (only) epistemological justification for uniformity in nature. But Thor does not provide epistemological justification for believing in lightning. I have a book on this topic that you might want to read before continuing this discussion, so that you are up to speed on what it is we are discussing. You seem to think that this is about cause-and-effect. It isn’t.]

          No, you clearly believe Thor (and all the other germanic gods) exists but you just deny it. Together they provide epistemological justification for uniformity in nature. Just like all the Hindu gods you clearly believe in. Funny how you claim not to know much about other religions propositions yet you make the claim that ONLY christianity can […].

          [Dr. Lisle: As I have shown in the book “Ultimate Proof of Creation” only Christian theism can account for the preconditions of intelligibility. For example, no polytheistic religion can account for objective morality because which god’s decrees should we follow? The gods of other faith systems cannot account for uniformity in nature for a number of reasons. For example, it is the biblical God who transcends time (2 Peter 3:8), has all power (Genesis 17:1, Genesis 18:14), who knows all things including the future (Isaiah 46:9-10), has revealed Himself (Romans 1:18-20), and has promised to uphold the future like the past (Genesis 8:22). All these things are necessary in order to have justification for uniformity in nature, and no other god fulfills all these.]

          [Dr. Lisle: And this confirms it. With all respect, you would do well to spend some time in a library, or take a class on this topic. Even educated critics will concede the authenticity of the Bible. Secular scholars will not deny the historical reality of Abraham for example. Or Jericho, or Ai. I gave evidence. You’ve just ignored it and given rhetoric. That is not the mark of rationality.]

          I found your ‘evidence’ to be so silly that I could not imagine you were beeing serious (Poe’s law).

          [Dr. Lisle: This is a question-begging epithet fallacy. Often when a critic cannot refute the evidence he simply calls it silly and dismisses it. But of course, that is not rational. Imagine if I did that with evolution. After all, you believe you are biologically related to an onion. Poe’s law would seem to apply.]

          Is the argument you are trying to make that; “The bible contains statements that have been proven historically correct, therefore every statement in the bible and the story as a whole is historically accurate”? Or is it “If a fiction book references certain historic events correctly, the entire book is historically accurate”?

          [Dr. Lisle: Neither. Rather the point is that your claim that the Bible is fiction is demonstrably false. It is a history book, as even (educated) critics will concede.]

          [Third, you said that the Bible is “open to interpretation.” But it really isn’t. We are not free to interpret words just any way that we wish. (If you disagree, then I will begin interpreting your words the way that I wish). There are rules of interpretation. There are rules of grammar and syntax. And there are rules of inference that constrain the conclusions we draw from what we read. If you are interested to learn about this topic, it is called “hermeneutics.” I can refer you to some resources if you wish.]

          [Dr. Lisle: ??!! Perhaps you didn’t realize it, but Christianity is monotheistic – e.g. one God. Maybe you meant that different Christians have different conceptions of God. But if so, that is an error on their part; the Bible describes the characteristics of God very clearly.]

          1) You seem to ignore Godels incompleteness theorem.

          [Dr. Lisle: I am familiar with it. But I don’t know what your point is, if you have one. More things are true than can be proved. But this doesn’t seem relevant to the discussion.]

          2) You seem to ignore solipsism.

          [Dr. Lisle: I am happy to discuss solipsism with you, if you wish. Of course, you will have to acknowledge my existence for that conversation to be meaningful. 🙂 ]

          3) If it is not open to interpretation, which interpretation/conception is correct? (Catholic, Protestant, your own specific interpretation, My mothers intepretation …?)

          [Dr. Lisle: I appreciate your question. The Scriptures are self-interpreting. So the answer to your question is: the correct interpretation is the one that the Scriptures give. As an example, the correct interpretation of the “voice” mentioned in Isaiah 40:3 is that it is John the Baptist, because Matthew 3:3 teaches this.]

          Still waiting for a definition and evidence.

          [Dr. Lisle: I’ve provided them. I’m waiting for you to actually deal with the evidence instead of dismissing it. But I’m not holding my breath.]

          [Dr. Lisle: You obviously do or else you wouldn’t have bothered to type “I do not.” You assumed that when you pressed the letter “I” that the letter “I” would very likely appear on the screen as it has in the past. This is the concept of uniformity. I highly recommend that you read up a bit on this topic so that you understand what it is we are discussing.]

          We are discussing your god(s) and your evidence for it (him/her/them), not the beliefs you imagine I have.

          [Dr. Lisle: The evidence for God is that knowledge is possible – in this case uniformity in nature. This is the concept that we can make reasonable inferences about the future based on past experience, since God has promised to uphold the universe in a consistent way. You do believe in uniformity or you would not have bothered typing a reply. Thus your actions not only reveal the existence of God, but also reveal that you do believe in God. You may not emotionally like this type of evidence for God. But I don’t believe that you can refute it by coming up with some other justification for uniformity in nature.]

          • Dyz says:

            I still can’t find the line where it says; “And there is no need to recreate stuff every thursday”

            [Dr. Lisle: In logic, a proposition is the meaning of the sentence; the exact choice of words is not relevant. So if you think that it is significant that God did not use exactly the same words in your quote, then you need to take a basic class on logic. The Bible indicates that God finished His work by the seventh day, and hence is not re-creating every Thursday. This has already been explained to you (twice). So if your reading comprehension skills are too poor to grasp this, then I probably can’t help you. You have yet to explain how your worldview can refute last-thursday-ism. I don’t think you can.]

            [Dr. Lisle: As I have shown in the book “Ultimate Proof of Creation” only Christian theism can account for the preconditions of intelligibility. For example, no polytheistic religion can account for objective morality because which god’s decrees should we follow? The gods of other faith systems cannot account for uniformity in nature for a number of reasons. For example, it is the biblical God who transcends time (2 Peter 3:8), has all power (Genesis 17:1, Genesis 18:14), who knows all things including the future (Isaiah 46:9-10), has revealed Himself (Romans 1:18-20), and has promised to uphold the future like the past (Genesis 8:22). All these things are necessary in order to have justification for uniformity in nature, and no other god fulfills all these.]

            This is just one giant argument from ignorance. You clearly know too little about other religions to be able to make these claims.

            [Dr. Lisle: No, an argument from ignorance is not this. It is what we DO know about God, and also about other religious systems that demonstrates that only the biblical God can justify uniformity of nature, and laws of logic, and so on. If you hold to another religion that you think justifies these things, then please make your case. Of course, it won’t do to claim that some other religion that you don’t believe in can justify uniformity, because that would still leave uniformity unjustified in your worldview; this would demonstrate my point that you are not thinking rationally. Your belief system would make knowledge impossible. If you disagree, please explain how, and don’t just assert an unsubstantiated claim.]

            [Dr. Lisle: Neither. Rather the point is that your claim that the Bible is fiction is demonstrably false. It is a history book, as even (educated) critics will concede.]

            Well I’ve got some even more educated critics right here that say the bible is a fiction book and support that claim with evidence.

            [Dr. Lisle: No you don’t. You really need to go to a library and read up on this.]

            So your claim that the bible is a history book is demonstrably false.

            [Dr. Lisle: It is obvious that you have not read a single book on this subject. Some of the ancient cities that the Bible describes (such as Jericho and Ai) have been excavated. The Bible was exactly right. Even secular archeologists will concede this, as you would know if you spent some time in a library.]

            [Dr. Lisle: The evidence for God is that knowledge is possible – in this case uniformity in nature. This is the concept that we can make reasonable inferences about the future based on past experience, since God has promised to uphold the universe in a consistent way. You do believe in uniformity or you would not have bothered typing a reply. Thus your actions not only reveal the existence of God, but also reveal that you do believe in God. You may not emotionally like this type of evidence for God. But I don’t believe that you can refute it by coming up with some other justification for uniformity in nature.]

            When you clearly define your god and supply evidence, then it will be for me to refute that. So far all you have done is make unsubstantiated claims about it (him/her/them). There is nothing to refute.

            [Dr. Lisle: Since I have defined God and have provided evidence for His existence (that only His characteristics can justify logic and uniformity), and since you have provided no counter-argument I’ll take this as your concession of defeat. Moreover, you continue to show that you too believe in God by continuing to trust in uniformity in nature (when you post a reply). After all, this would be rationally unjustified in a secular worldview.]

            • Josef says:

              Dyz: “I still can’t find the line where it says; “And there is no need to recreate stuff every thursday”

              The biblical text says, “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.” (Gen 2:1-2)

              The creation wouldn’t be “complete” if God had to re-create every Thursday, now would it? So the Christian worldview can answer last Thursdayism. The real question is can your worldview do this? The ironic thing about this concept that you bring up is that it refutes your worldview, not ours.

              Dyz: “This is just one giant argument from ignorance. You clearly know too little about other religions to be able to make these claims.

              As it’s already been explained to you, an argument from ignorance is when someone claims there isn’t contrary evidence, but that’s not the argument. It’s not about what we don’t know, it’s about what we do know. How about this: explain how another religion justifies the preconditions of intelligibility? That’s all it would take to refute our position, yet, no one has been able to do this thus far.

              Dyz: “Well I’ve got some even more educated critics right here that say the bible is a fiction book and support that claim with evidence. So your claim that the bible is a history book is demonstrably false.

              You can assert that, but you haven’t provided any evidence for your claims.

              Dyz: “When you clearly define your god and supply evidence, then it will be for me to refute that. So far all you have done is make unsubstantiated claims about it (him/her/them). There is nothing to refute.

              Actually Dr. Lisle has defined God according to the Bible. Also, he didn’t make unsubstantiated claims but he instead demonstrated how the biblical God, alone, makes knowledge possible. The only thing you have to do to disprove this is explain how another worldview (preferably your own) can justify the preconditions of intelligibility. How about do that instead of dodging the issue?

  5. Dyz says:

    Thank you for your interesting replies. I don’t have time to respond right now, but I hope to continue this later.

  6. Josh says:

    I’m talking with a friend who’s an evolutionist. Before we started talking I defined some things. Like evolution, creation, and I explained that there’s two different kinds of science. What would you say to what he said?

    ME: “General Theory of Evolution – the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.

    In other words, evolution is, the naturalistic process that is alleged to have turned molecules into man over billions of years.

    Creation – as described in the book of Genesis, God created the universe in six, approximately 24-hour days, roughly 6,000 years ago.

    Operational (Observable) science – a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.

    This is what some like to call, ‘here-and-now’, science. This is the type of science that finds cures for sicknesses, sends mankind to the moon, and makes products of any kind that are useful to us. This type of science involves experimentation with observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable events.

    Historical (Origins) science – interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view.

    Events that happened in the past are neither observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable. Thus, the full extent of the scientific method cannot be used for evolution or creation. Both evolution and creation are based on presupposed beliefs about how the universe began. Therefore, because we have different starting points (yours being billions of years of evolution, there being no God, naturalism, etc. Mine being the Bible), we reach different conclusions by interpreting the evidence to fit our framework of beliefs. You see, creationists and evolutions have the same evidence. The evidence is all the same, we just interpret the evidence differently.

    __________________________________________________________ _____________________

    HIM: Evolution is best defined as the following:

    “In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.”

    However, this is incredibly wordy. It can be shortened to “evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next”, or “Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.” My personal explanation is a formula: “Genetic Mutation + Natural Selection = Speciation” being the summary of evolution.

    Secondly, I’m going to deny the distinction between “operational” and “historical” science as relevant. This was something proposed arbitrarily by AIG and then thoroughly dismissed as ridiculous by all on the evolution field, theists and secular alike. To quote Carol Cleland, “the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained.” In Sober’s words regarding sex: “[o]nly by combining laws and history can one say why sex did evolve”. While one may claim their is a distinction, to say one is worse than another, or one is unfalsifiable, or similar is all false. “Nomothetic and historical disciplines in evolutionary biology have much to learn from each other.”, arguably, but “they complement each other”. One is not more important than the other.

    • Josef says:

      Josh, I’m assuming you’re mainly concerned with his rejection of the terms “operational science” and “historical science”. However, whether he likes it or not, those distinctions do exist.

      I would challenge him on these with examples so that he can see for himself the difference between the two. Mainly that operational science deals with things in the present that we can see, test, and demonstrate. Historical science deals with things in the past so by definition, it is not something we can directly observe or test. All of our testing must be done in the present and from there, we can make try to determine what happened in the past. But make no mistake about it, operational science is superior to historical science simply for the fact that it can be observed directly.

      If historical science were truly on the same level of credibility as operational science, then it would be rather easy to solve a court case, wouldn’t it? If you think about it, all court cases are about something that happened in the past and now the lawyers look at the facts of the case (operational science) and based on that, they try to interpret what they think happened in the past (historical science).

      And unlike operational science, historical science is largely driven by the worldview of the researcher. E.g., if we see a world covered with fossils, then to the naturalist or atheist, this might be interpreted as evidence for long periods of time. But to the biblical creationist, the fossils are evidence for the global flood. Who is right? Operational science can’t determine this alone, but it can be used to see which “theory” about the past makes the most sense of what we see in the present.

      Of course, the main problem is really that only the biblical worldview provides justification for the preconditions of intelligibility that makes even operational science possible. Only the biblical worldview provides the basis for all of science so by necessity, the atheistic worldview must be wrong any way. 🙂

      • Josh says:

        And what about his definition of evolution?

        • Wayne says:

          He is trying to conflate and confuse the issue of evolution. You need to press forward and insist on two distinctions, Common Descent (which he will recognize by that title) and genetic mutation or adaptation. Press home the fact that creationists like Dr. Lisle, myself, the staff at AIG, and the many creationists on this blog accept as fact adaptation/mutation. It is a part of operational science because we can observe adaptations and mutations occurring all around us. The problem is this:Common Descent. The debate needs to focus on the Common Descent of Man/Life from a single celled entity as evolutionists claim happened in the pre-Cambrian seas several billion years ago. I hate to put a plug in for a video here on this blog, but as AIG is plugging for it (they hosted the world premier) I would recommend getting your hands on this movie:http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/product/evolution-vs-god/?sku=90-2-158

          Evolution vs. God. I bought it and watched it two weeks ago, phenomenal and very well done. Really illustrates the kind of things you need to hold your friend to the fire about.

        • Josef says:

          Josh,

          In a lot of ways he’s at least more honest than a lot of the evolutionists I have debated with. Because he’s at least willing to admit that “evolution” encompasses a lot more than just biological life. Most evolutionists lately seem to want to limit evolution to just things that concern biological life and leaves the origins of the universe or life out of it.

          With that said, I don’t have real problem with his definitions except for two things.

          It can be shortened to “evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next”

          If this were truly all that he meant by evolution, then there would be no debate. All of us would be evolutionists by this definition. But unfortunately, this isn’t all that is meant as he admits earlier.

          ; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.

          Here he simply begs the question by assuming that the changes he’s talking about are information gaining. This is one of the areas I would challenge him in.

          • Josh says:

            Thank you Josef and Wayne! Another thing. I think these two also deal with operational and origins science. But will you help me reply?

            ” The Million Dollar Question

            Imagine you are a creationist, or ID proponent. A huge organisation has decided to fund you a million dollars into an experiment to prove your scientific hypothesis. Not to attack evolution, but to prove creationism. What would you spend the money on? This question I think is incredibly valuable, as there is no experiment that comes to mind to prove or disprove the hypothesis, which makes it both unfalsifiable and unverifiable.

            Is creaton objective?

            Helen Longino dealt with the question “what makes science objective”? She states two characteristics: (1) cultural diversity among the scientific community and (2) that scientific theory ultimately must bend to truth. The Young Earth hypothesis, unlike evolution, fulfils neither characteristic. It is not objective.”

            • Josef says:

              Josh,

              Hope your debate is going well.

              Imagine you are a creationist, or ID proponent. A huge organisation has decided to fund you a million dollars into an experiment to prove your scientific hypothesis. Not to attack evolution, but to prove creationism.

              Notice the subtle question-begging epithet your friend has used by contrasting evolution with creationism. The “-ism” at the end of “creation” implies that creation is simply a belief, but evolution isn’t.

              Also, your friend doesn’t seem to understand why discrediting evolution actually is in favor for creation. Because either the universe is here by naturalistic means (God was not involved in any meaningful way) or the universe is not the result of naturalistic means. The law of the excluded middle exhausts any other possibility. So if we can show that it is impossible for the universe to have come into existence naturally, then it is powerful evidence that it was created supernaturally.

              Another example would be with chemical evolution, specifically abiogenesis. Either life originated via natural means or it is not the case that it originated via natural means. Again, the law of the excluded middle exhausts all other possibilities. So, if atheistic abiogenesis can be disproven, then it follows that life did not originate naturally.

              This question I think is incredibly valuable, as there is no experiment that comes to mind to prove or disprove the hypothesis, which makes it both unfalsifiable and unverifiable.

              Here your friend fails to realize the distinction between historical/origins science and operational science. Experimentation can only be done with things in the present, i.e. operational science. However, both creation and evolution are educated guesses about what occurred in the past. There is no experiment that can be done to prove or disprove either one.
              E.g., evolutionists believe that reptiles evolved into birds, and even if this was true, what experiment could we do to prove this? There simply isn’t any. This is why historical science isn’t on the same playing field as operational science.

              However, this isn’t to say that there aren’t experiments that we can do to show how the evidence is more consistent with biblical creation. E.g., because biblical creationists believe that God created original kinds of animals and everything is a winding down process, then we would expect to see that mutations generally lead to losses of genetic information. This is certainly what we observe and is consistent with the creationist’s model. Also, since creationists believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, we would expect that diamonds buried in rock layers that secular scientists claim are millions of years old, would still contain C14 in them. And this is what we do find, and again, this is consistent with the creationist’s model and inconsistent with the evolutionist’s model since all of the C14 should be gone by the secular time-scale.

              Dr. Lisle could probably give a more insightful answer to the “what would you research” question as he is directly involved in creation research at the ICR.

              Helen Longino dealt with the question “what makes science objective”?

              This is the fallacy of reification because science is a tool used by people, and it’s people who may or may not be objective. Someone can certainly use science properly or improperly, however.

              She states two characteristics: (1) cultural diversity among the scientific community

              How exactly does cultural diversity lead to objectiveness? It makes it sound like this person thinks there is no cultural diversity among biblical creationists.

              and (2) that scientific theory ultimately must bend to truth. The Young Earth hypothesis, unlike evolution, fulfils neither characteristic. It is not objective.”

              I find it ironic that your friend would agree that a scientific theory must “bend to truth”. Because not one evolutionist who accepts abiogenesis bases this off of the observable facts, but instead bases this belief off of his world view. Talk about not bending to the facts!

              What you will find is that all evidence is interpreted according to the worldview of the observer. That is all “theories” bend towards the worldview. The reason the evolutionists believe in abiogenesis is because their worldview doesn’t allow for another possibility.

  7. Steve says:

    Jason,

    I’ve read/studied a lot of your work and ICR and AIG. A common fact that I have seen is the reference to 1 Peter 3:15

    1 Peter 3:15
    King James Version (KJV)
    15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear

    Someone posted a comment on Facebook saying we should not debate. I used this verse as my backup and pointed out we should do it in meekness. Someone else countered saying it was out of context and “with meekness” means we should not argue or debate. What are your thoughts on the idea that we “shouldn’t debate”?

    • Josef says:

      Actually the person who said “with meekness” means not to debate is wrong. That simply means to debate respectfully. Anyway, the Christian MO has always been to defend the Scriptures, even through debate. Check Paul in Acts 17:1-3:

      1 Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.”

      Now let’s stop to think about this for a second. Paul actually went into the synagogue of the Jews and reasoned (i.e. debate) with them that Jesus is the Messiah. Can you imagine if some non-Christian came into your church and started to try to convince you that what you believe is wrong and their beliefs are the correct one? I’m sure many in the church would have their feelings hurt, be upset, and yes, even try to argue back. So for someone to say that Christians shouldn’t debate is over looking how Christians have always conducted themselves including the apostles.

      Also remember that Jude tells use to contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 1:3). The word contend means to debate or argue.

      And of course the best example of debate in Scriptures come from Jesus himself. Noticed how he handed himself with the Sadduccees in Matt 22:23-32. The Sadduccees didn’t believe there would be a resurrection of the dead and they tried to show Jesus the foolishness of such an idea by pointing out that if people had more than one spouse in their life time, then it would lead to them having multiple spouses in the Resurrection. However, Jesus, instead of giving into their presupposition, shows them that their presupposition is incorrect as there are no marriages in the Resurrection. So their entire objection was built on a false belief.

      So, yes, we should debate and defend our faith. Not only is it the Christian MO to do so as shown by Paul and Jesus himself, but also Jude tells use to “contend earnestly for the faith”.

      Instead, I think Christians looking to discourage debate either are misunderstanding that the Bible tells us to, or they are looking for an excuse to not learn how to defend the faith.

      • Steve says:

        That is what I thought and that is what I countered with in a joking manner. I had said that “with meekness” (or “with gentleness” as in NASB) means not to have a heated argument or resort to name-calling, etc…
        I ended with a joke something like saying “let’s not debate about this”. hehe
        Thank you for the other verses to reference.

  8. sage says:

    Your god is dead. All gods are dead. The light of science killed them. None of your silly pedantry regarding worldviews can change that 🙂

    • Micah says:

      You got a rational argument to back up those claims? I mean really…how hard is it to substantiate your claims a little?

  9. Kenny says:

    Dr. Lisle,
    More than a three hundred type Ia supernovae show that the further away you look, the more time dilation is observed in their eruption phases. This is caused by velocity time dilation. This is because of the finite speed of the light being delayed by the expansion of the space in between us and the supernovae. In 2008 New Scientist reported on research showing that the most distant of these slow-mo explosions appeared to age at only about 60% of the normal rate seen in nearby supernovae.

    How does your ASC theory, with its infinitely fast light, explain the time dilation?

    • Dr. Lisle says:

      Hi Kenny,

      That’s a very astute question. Technically, the apparent stretching of light curves of distance supernovae is not due to velocity at all, but rather the stretching of spacetime. But let’s go ahead and consider the case of something (a regular pulsating flashlight for example) moving through space away from us at high speed, because it is easier to understand, and it produces the same effect anyway. Why do we perceive a slowdown in the pulses?

      There are two principles that cause us to see the pulses as being farther apart in time than when the light is stationary. First, since the flashlight is moving, it is at a greater distance when it gives the second pulse than it was when it sends the first pulse. Using the standard isotropic synchronization system, the light must travel extra distance, which takes extra time: hence, there is an added delay between the two pulses. Second, the relativistic effect of motion causes the passage of time to genuinely slow for the moving flashlight. And hence the flashlight actually pulsates more slowly than its stationary counterpart. (This second effect is why there is a transverse Doppler Effect.) These two principles add, and we perceive only the combined dilation of pulses.

      In the case of ASC, the first principle has no effect. Even though the flashlight is at a greater distance for the second pulse, the light takes no time at all under ASC to traverse the increased distance, and hence no delay. But the second principle still exists; genuine time dilation of the clock. However, the formula for time-dilation actually depends on the one-way speed of light. This formula is shown in John Winnie’s 1970 paper “Special Relativity without one-way velocity assumptions. Part I.” The genuine time-dilation for the flashlight is actually greater under ASC than it is under isotropic synchrony. And – you guessed it – it exactly compensates for the lack of principle number one. In other words, the perceived time-dilation of the flashlight is exactly the same at a given velocity whether we use ASC or isotropic synchrony.

      I hope this helps.

  10. Josef says:

    the ignored: >”Huh? What does the xian worldview have to say about logic at all?
    Where do you get the idea that your worldview has anything to do with logic?”

    Apart from the Bible, there is simply no basis for why logic exists, as logic is contingent upon the biblical God. Only the biblical worldview provides justification for logic and why we can rely on it.

    the ignored: >“The greeks have a stronger case for that claim than you do.”

    How so?

    the ignored: “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.”

    Actually in the atheistic worldview, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a “sociopath”. Because if the universe is all there is, then there is no such thing as “right” or “wrong”.

    The universe is amoral if God does not exist. So being a sociopath should be no more disgusting than being an outstanding citizen. But the fact that you do believe being a sociopath is disgusting shows that you do hold to a moral standard. And it’s a moral standard that you expect all humans to abide by. But where did you get this idea that all humans should be subject to the same moral standards? This is easily explainable in the biblical worldview, but it makes no sense in the atheist’s worldview.

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

    You do not have an objective moral standard.

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

    Of course. Whatever God commands is absolutely moral because God himself is the absolute standard for good. In fact, if God really did command to do something, such as kill babies, then it would be immoral not to do it. And on what basis do you have to disagree with this outside of mere opinion?

    I also realize that most unbelievers would disagree with what I just said. However, that they would is not evidence that God is immoral, but rather that humans are immoral. Because as God is the absolute standard for good any disagreement with him would by definition be immoral.

    Btw, I find it ironic that atheists have a problem with killing babies if God were to command it, but atheists generally have no problem with killing babies simply on the basis that the parents were irresponsible, e.g. abortion.

    the ignored: >“You people have an inconsistent, subjective moral standard mixed with a lot of self-righteousness.”

    Ironically from your worldview, you shouldn’t have a problem with this even if it were true (which it isn’t). Because in the atheistic worldview, there is nothing wrong with being self-righteous. Tell me, what exactly is wrong with being self-righteous? Can you objectively show me from your worldview how being self-righteous is wrong?

    Again, apart from the biblical God, there is no basis for saying being self-righteous is immoral or even that having an inconsistent moral standard is wrong.

    Once again, the very fact that you think all humans should have a consistent moral standard shows that you do know the biblical God. Otherwise, if atheism is true, then why would you expect all humans to behave in a fashion that you would consider “moral”? Didn’t you just say earlier that there isn’t an agreed upon rule book for atheists? If that is true, then why do you think we should all abide by your view?

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

    Apart from the Bible, the Greeks wouldn’t have anything to formulate as logic is contingent upon the biblical God.

    • the_ignored says:

      Josef: You have the same problem that Micah does…the bible does not describe the laws of logic. If it doesn’t describe them, then what evidence do you have that your god is responsible for them?

      And as for the subject of baby-killing….you’ve just helped make my case. If god orders something, it’s good by definition. So if god ordered you to kill babies, it’d be immoral to not do it.

      Thanks for exposing the subjective nature of the xian moral view. If it was objectively wrong to kill babies, it’d be wrong even if god told you to do it.

      Must be easy to be the perfect picture of morality as god when, no matter what you say or do, your servants will declare it to be “moral” no matter what. Matthew 5:48 says to be perfect as god is…if god can do anything he wants and it’s by definition “good” then that verse has no meaning.

      Actually in the atheistic worldview, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a “sociopath”. Because if the universe is all there is, then there is no such thing as “right” or “wrong”.
      And the fact that other people are hurt and killed by such attitudes? The fact that families can be torn apart by their members being killed by those with such attitudes means nothing to you unless “god” says so?

      That says more about your morality pal then it does about atheists’s!

      • Micah says:

        Josef: You have the same problem that Micah does…the bible does not describe the laws of logic. If it doesn’t describe them, then what evidence do you have that your god is responsible for them?

        We never made the claim that the Bible describes the laws of logic. The claim was that the Bible is the basis for the laws of logic. That is, if the Bible were not true, there would be no reason to believe that such laws exist or that they have the properties they have.

        And as for the subject of baby-killing….you’ve just helped make my case. If god orders something, it’s good by definition. So if god ordered you to kill babies, it’d be immoral to not do it.

        As Josef said, God is the standard for morality….you can’t have objective morality apart from God, anything else would be subjective and arbitrary. Or would you care to explain how, on your worldview, killing is objectively wrong?

        Thanks for exposing the subjective nature of the xian moral view. If it was objectively wrong to kill babies, it’d be wrong even if god told you to do it.

        That makes no sense, if God is not the objective standard for right and wrong then that would mean there is a higher standard than God which is impossible since there is nothing greater than God.

        Must be easy to be the perfect picture of morality as god when, no matter what you say or do, your servants will declare it to be “moral” no matter what.

        Its an objective morality, you can mock it all you want but if morality is not based on God (who is perfect and never contradicts himself) then it is impossible for it to be objective.

        Matthew 5:48 says to be perfect as god is…if god can do anything he wants and it’s by definition “good” then that verse has no meaning.

        Actually the Bible says that there are things God cannot do.
        He cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18), and He cannot deny himself (2 Timothy 2:13). Therefore, morality based on God wont change because God wont change.

        Actually in the atheistic worldview, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a “sociopath”. Because if the universe is all there is, then there is no such thing as “right” or “wrong”.
        And the fact that other people are hurt and killed by such attitudes? The fact that families can be torn apart by their members being killed by those with such attitudes means nothing to you unless “god” says so?

        You didn’t refute Josef’s point. Merely dodged it. The atheistic worldview, or any worldview that is not based on the Bible, cannot account for objective morality. Morality is completely meaningless in an atheistic worldview where people have about as much value as a toadstool. There is just no reason, apart from God, to think that murder, theft, or any other crime is objectively wrong.

        • the_ignored says:

          You didn’t refute Josef’s point. Merely dodged it. The atheistic worldview, or any worldview that is not based on the Bible, cannot account for objective morality.
          No. I refuted it. The problem is is that you people have a sociopathic view where you must have someone from “on high” tell you that something is wrong.

          Things like mere consequences, pain and suffering of others, the continuation of the human race, etc mean nothing to you people, as your reply to me goes on to demonstrate:
          As Josef said, God is the standard for morality….you can’t have objective morality apart from God, anything else would be subjective and arbitrary. Or would you care to explain how, on your worldview, killing is objectively wrong?

          Xians just refuse to accept any source of morality other than your god. Thing is: that does not mean that other people don’t have a source of morality.

          And again: What you people have is not “objective morality”. What you people have is subjective morality. Whatever god says is moral is “good” even if it’s the killing of babies, as Josef has admitted.

          About the laws of logic and whether god can lie or change, etc, just read my reply down here:
          http://www.jasonlisle.com/2012/11/09/deep-time-the-god-of-our-age/comment-page-3/#comment-5473

          • Josef says:

            No you did not refute it. All you did was merely disagree with it. Why, if atheism is true, would hurting other people be wrong? Why is being a sociopath wrong? As I’ve already pointed out, in the atheistic worldview there is no such thing as right or wrong.

            And I’m happy to say it, because God is the ultimate standard for good. Obviously if he’s the standard then any position against him is necessarily immoral.

          • Micah says:

            No. I refuted it. The problem is is that you people have a sociopathic view where you must have someone from “on high” tell you that something is wrong.

            If we didn’t have God to rely on then morality would be reduced to mere opinion. Without an authority higher that ourselves, we become the authority, that is as subjective as you can get.

            Things like mere consequences, pain and suffering of others, the continuation of the human race, etc mean nothing to you people, as your reply to me goes on to demonstrate:

            Apart from God, what would be the basis to care about the suffering of others, the continuation of the human race or pain? Can you answer that without being arbitrary? This is also a strawman, as suffering and pain is something us christians care deeply about. God values all human life so we have an objective reason to value human life too. It is based on God, not ourselves so it is not subjective like you keep insisting.

            As Josef said, God is the standard for morality….you can’t have objective morality apart from God, anything else would be subjective and arbitrary. Or would you care to explain how, on your worldview, killing is objectively wrong?

            Xians just refuse to accept any source of morality other than your god.

            See, you still haven’t answered the question. Any other source of morality apart from God would be subjective.

            Thing is: that does not mean that other people don’t have a source of morality.

            I dont deny that non-christians have morality. The question is whether that morality is logically justified in their worldview.

            And again: What you people have is not “objective morality”. What you people have is subjective morality. Whatever god says is moral is “good” even if it’s the killing of babies, as Josef has admitted.

            Subjective would mean it is based on our own personal feelings, but thats not what we are doing. We are basing it off of what God has said in His Word. That is objective. Once we deny God as the source of morality, then morality can be whatever we want it to be. It becomes subjective and arbitrary.

            About the laws of logic and whether god can lie or change, etc, just read my reply down here:
            http://www.jasonlisle.com/2012/11/09/deep-time-the-god-of-our-age/comment-page-3/#comment-5473

            I read it, those supposed problems with the Bible are nothing new and have been refuted extensively by Christians. It amazes me that these are even still being used.

            http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/01/05/contradiction-a-change-of-heart

            and for a more full list of supposed contradictions: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/contradictions-scripture-index

            Micah

          • Micah says:

            My comment is awaiting moderation. So please be patient and my response should be up once Jason logs on.

            Thanks!

          • Josef says:

            Ok I have a little extra time now.

            the ignored: “No. I refuted it. The problem is is that you people have a sociopathic view where you must have someone from “on high” tell you that something is wrong.”

            No, you did not refute it. In fact, this argument of yours doesn’t even make sense from your worldview. If atheism is true, then being a sociopath is no different than being what most would consider to be an “outstanding” citizen. This is a point that you have simply ignored (irony, btw).

            the ignored: “Things like mere consequences, pain and suffering of others, the continuation of the human race, etc mean nothing to you people, as your reply to me goes on to demonstrate”

            Again, if atheism is true then why should we care about the pain and suffering for others? The problem is that you have this concept of morality that you cannot justify from your worldview. All you are doing is merely repeating the same thing over and over without any justification for it.

            the ignored: “Xians just refuse to accept any source of morality other than your god.

            Of course, why would we accept a source of morality apart from the only true standard for morality?

            the ignored: “Thing is: that does not mean that other people don’t have a source of morality.”

            Straw-man fallacy again. We’ve never said that people don’t have a “source” of morality. We said that apart from the biblical God, any standard for morality will be necessarily subjective and arbitrary. And thus far, you have not demonstrated anything to refute this. So far, all you’ve essentially done is offered your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions…

            the ignored: “And again: What you people have is not “objective morality”. What you people have is subjective morality. Whatever god says is moral is “good” even if it’s the killing of babies, as Josef has admitted.

            It is objective morality because it’s not based upon an arbitrary standard nor is it a standard that comes from ourselves. I.e. I don’t simply say it is wrong to murder simply on the basis of my opinion, but rather because people are made in the image of God and God has revealed to us that murder is against his very nature.

            And once again, all you’ve done is just merely repeated that it is wrong to do this or that, and haven’t offered anything of substance.

            And I must say again, I find it ironic that atheists find it immoral to kill babies if God commands it, but atheists don’t find it immoral to kill babies just because the parents were irresponsible or simply don’t want to be parents of a live baby (people who go through with abortion are still parents. The difference is that they are the parents of a dead child instead of a live one).

            Throughout this entire post, you haven’t offered anything of substance, just your opinion.

            Why should we care about the welfare of others? Why should we care about the continuance of the human race? Why does injustice bother you?

            In the atheistic worldview there is no such thing as “evil” or “good”. These concepts only comport with the Christian worldview. The very fact that you find immorality disgusting shows you are holding to a moral standard that you expect all of us to abide by. But you cannot justify this moral standard. Apart from the biblical God, you never will be able to.

          • Steve says:

            the ignored: The problem is is that you people have a sociopathic view where you must have someone from “on high” tell you that something is wrong.

            Actually, it’s that we must have someone from “on high” telling us that something is wrong. God has already written his laws on all our hearts, even atheists. The fact that you know there is right and wrong proves God and His ultimate standard is real.

            • Steve says:

              “Actually, it’s NOT that we must have someone….” sorry about that omission.

            • Incandescent says:

              “Krishna has already written his laws on all our hearts, even atheists. The fact that you know there is right and wrong proves Krishna and His ultimate standard is real.”

              Exactly the same argument, exactly as valid. Ergo, you must also believe in Hinduism (which is older than Christianity, btw, by several thousand years).
              Of course, I expect you to use the same circular reasoning that Micah & Josef do, i.e., “the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true.”

              Fun fact: the Bible contradicts itself in the first 2 chapters of Genesis. Not a “change of heart,” an outright contradiction. Not to mention the places where it contradicts reality (rabbits chewing cud, bats being fowl, etc.).

              I have nothing against Christians or Christianity. It’s fanatics & sociopaths who use the Bible to justify whatever sick crimes they commit that bother me. By Josef’s own “logic,” Adolf Hitler was justified in what he did because he claimed to be doing God’s work. Every insane psychopath that ever used “God told me to do it” is a hero to Josef.
              That, by definition, is evil. (Of course, even the Bible says that God creates evil, so…)

              • Brian Forbes says:

                LOL 🙂

                I don’t want to be mean, but that wasn’t a very good set of arguments. Let’s condemn them together.

                If the only basis for the claim of Christianity was that people have believed it for a long time, your Hindu argument would work. But nobody said that was the basis for Christianity. Plus, Hinduism is the descendant of pagan religion, and nobody should believe that. Click my name for more information.

                Gen. 1 & 2 do not contradict. That argument only works if you want it to be true. If people aren’t exposed to the idea before reading 1&2, they won’t get the idea from reading it… at least I didn’t.

                There was a great skit on Monk (tv show) where Monk organizes the shelf one way and Harold (another OCD) organizes it another way to correct Monk’s misguided efforts. Who is right? We don’t bother with the question, because we’re laughing at them for their petty bickering.

                It’s not those who claim to be in God’s will who are safe from judgment. It’s those who actually do the will of God that are safe.

              • Jim says:

                Incandescent wrote: Exactly the same argument, exactly as valid.

                Not Exactly…citations please?

                Incandescent wrote: Ergo, you must also believe in Hinduism (which is older than Christianity, btw, by several thousand years)

                Christians holds to the truths in the old testament as well, creation occurred approximately 4000 years before Christ. I believe this to be earlier than the beginnings of Hinduism. According to hinduism_about_com, Hinduism is only 5000 years old. Regardless, why would precedent determine what someone ought to believe?

                Incandescent wrote: …the Bible contradicts itself in the first 2 chapters of Genesis.

                Again, citation?

                Incandescent wrote: I have nothing against Christians or Christianity. It’s fanatics & sociopaths who use the Bible to justify whatever sick crimes they commit that bother me.

                You seem to contradict yourself, is it only Christian fanatics and sociopaths that bother you? Or do Islamic, Atheistic, Agnostic or fanatics and sociopaths that also bother you? Claiming to be a Christian does not mean a person becomes perfect, as they are still sinners. Christians are just as susceptible to mental and physical illness just as non-Christians. Why are you targeting Christians?

                Josef was making the argument that from an evolutionist’s perspective, “humans are animals”, that is not Josef’s perspective. If that is indeed the evolutionist’s perspective, then why was it wrong for Adolf Hitler to carry out the atrocities he did as an animal and monster that he was? He was certainly promoting his culture and future generations. So far, no rational answer has been given by atheists contributing to this blog.

                Incandescent wrote: Of course, even the Bible says that God creates evil, so…

                Citation?

                • Jim says:

                  Oops, formatting got me again. Should read “Or do Islamic, Atheistic, Agnostic or “your label here” fanatics and sociopaths that also bother you?

              • Josef says:

                Incandescent: ““Krishna has already written his laws on all our hearts, even atheists. The fact that you know there is right and wrong proves Krishna and His ultimate standard is real.”

                Except that Krishna cannot account for the preconditions for intelligibility; no polytheistic religion can. Which “god” would they be contingent on? Since different the different “gods” of Hinduism each have their own characteristics, we wouldn’t be able to expect that the conditions necessary for knowledge would remain constant through all space and time.

                Also, the Bible actually claims God wrote his law on our hearts (Romans 2:15); where in the Hindu writings does it make this claim about the Hindu gods or is this something you simply made up? If you just made it up, then it’s false by definition.

                Exactly the same argument, exactly as valid.

                Wrong, because 1. you haven’t shown that the Hindu scriptures actually make this claim and it’s not something you made up. And 2. unlike the biblical God, the Hindu gods cannot justify the preconditions of intelligibility. Only the biblical worldview makes knowledge possible. Hinduism teaches that “all is one” despite appearances; that is the differences in appearance that we perceive is just an illusion. Such a worldview would make genuine knowledge impossible as there would be no point in even studying the universe if we can’t even trust our senses to reliably interpret the universe we live in.

                Ergo, you must also believe in Hinduism (which is older than Christianity, btw, by several thousand years).

                This is simply question begging. Since God created the universe and the first man and since God has always communicated with man, it follows that the Judeo/Christian religion is older than Hinduism.

                Of course, I expect you to use the same circular reasoning that Micah & Josef do, i.e., “the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true.”

                Here you commit the straw-man fallacy; I’ve never said that, “The Bible is true because it says it’s true”. However, I have said in the past that the Bible is true not only because it claims to be the word of God, but any position against this will lead to absurdity.

                It would make no sense for me to defend the Bible as the word of God if it disclaimed divine revelation for one thing. And, as I’ve said, any position against the Bible being the word of God leads to absurdity; this is because apart from the biblical worldview, genuine knowledge is not possible. E.g., with Hinduism, not only do the Hindu gods fail to justify the preconditions of intelligibility, but the philosophy of Hinduism that all is one despite appearances would make true scientific inquiry an impossibility.

                Fun fact: the Bible contradicts itself in the first 2 chapters of Genesis. Not a “change of heart,” an outright contradiction.

                Since you did not actually state what the contradiction is, this stands as an unsupported claim.

                Not to mention the places where it contradicts reality (rabbits chewing cud, bats being fowl, etc.).

                These aren’t errors. By modern conventional classification systems, “cud” is food that is partially digested by ruminants that is brought forth to be re-eaten again. Rabbits might not be ruminants (at least not according to man-made conventional classifications), but this is exactly what they do; they chew a special kind of fecal pellet called cecotropes, which is partially digested food that they re-eat to get the remaining nutrients. This is essentially the same thing as cud as cud is partially digested food that is re-eaten. The fact that today under man-made classifications systems we only attribute cud to ruminants isn’t the fault of the Bible. Going by a broader definition of cud, which the biblical writers had every right to use, cecotropes are the same thing as cud.

                Likewise for bats, the Bible can’t be faulted for not following modern conventional classification systems. In biblical times people may have had a much broader or simpler classification system, i.e. if it flies with the aid of two wings, it’s a bird or fowl. But as it happens, the Hebrew word used in some translations as bird or fowl is “owph” which means, “flying creatures, birds, fowls, insects”. Are bats not flying creatures? Then they are indeed “owph”.

                Again, these types of examples shows lack of honesty or critical thinking by the skeptics.

                It’s fanatics & sociopaths who use the Bible to justify whatever sick crimes they commit that bother me.

                Sure, I also am against people who attempt to use the Bible to justify crimes, especially since when context is in place, the Bible never justifies any such thing.

                By Josef’s own “logic,” Adolf Hitler was justified in what he did because he claimed to be doing God’s work. Every insane psychopath that ever used “God told me to do it” is a hero to Josef.

                Here the question begging fallacy is use again; Hitler was justified because he claimed to be doing God’s work? Well let’s see: Hitler mercilessly had millions of Jews killed, but God says man is made in his image and it is a sin to murder. Does that sound like God’s work? Where does God say to attempt to exterminate the Jews? Hitler also thought that the Jews were an inferior race, does that comport with the biblical worldview? No, it doesn’t, because Adam and Eve are the ancestors of all humans and Jesus died for all people. This argument shows desperation on your part to debunk the Christian worldview.

                That, by definition, is evil. (Of course, even the Bible says that God creates evil, so…)

                Actually the concept of “evil” does not comport with a non-biblical worldview, because apart from the biblical God, morality is arbitrary. Also, your claim that the Bible says God created evil is another unsubstantiated claim.

                • Steve says:

                  Looks like you were typing the same time I was! haha

                • Micah says:

                  All great replies guys, i enjoyed reading them. (and it saved me the time of having to write a reply, so thanks!)

                • Dyz says:

                  “no polytheistic religion can. Which “god” would they be contingent on? Since different the different “gods” of Hinduism each have their own characteristics, we wouldn’t be able to expect that the conditions necessary for knowledge would remain constant through all space and time. ”

                  Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

                  [Dr. Lisle: No. An argumentum ad ignorantiam is when a person tries to justify an assumption by pointing out that there is no evidence to the contrary. That is not what is happening here. Instead, it is an argument based on what we do know; the various gods of other religions are not transcendent, and therefore cannot account for any precondition of intelligibility that doesn’t change with time or space.]

              • Steve says:

                Replacing God with Krishna to prove your point does not work in this instance. It is not merely my opinion that God has written His laws on all our hearts, He says so in His Word. I don’t believe Krishna has the same writings, ergo, it is not the same argument nor valid.

                Further, my second point was to indicate that even atheists know right and wrong based on God’s ultimate standard as opposed to being brought into existance by random processes where it doesn’t make sense to have an ultimate standard.

                At the outset of this response, I am not merely saying the Bible is true because it says it is. I was giving you my source and not just mere opinion.

                Fun Actual Facts:
                As answered already, there are no contradications between Genesis 1 and 2. Please indicate specifically where you find this.

                Rabbits chewing cud. The Bible is compiled of books written long ago. At the time of writing this particular verse regarding rabbits was about 3,500 years ago… long before modern man created the classifications of animals who chew cud. Rabbits do engage in cecotrophy. I’ll let you look that up.

                Bats are fowl. Hebrew word used is owph which basically means ‘has a wing’. There is no error here. Something to think about is that Moses, who wrote this, was among the top educated in the land of Egypt at the time of his writings. It is not reasonable to think the usual error of thinking that Genesis was written by goat herders.

                You have misunderstood the argument set forth regarding Hitler. No one here is saying he was justified. Time and again, they have pointed out that on the basis of an evolutionist, there is no rational basis for saying Hitler was wrong.

  11. the_ignored says:

    Micah says:
    August 3, 2013 at 5:32 pm

    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…
    I never said that they “created” them, just that they were the first in known history to figure them out.

    [Dr. Lisle: Apart from the biblical God, there would have been nothing for the Greeks to discover. The existence and properties of laws of logic are justified only in the Christian worldview, regardless of who uses such laws or first wrote them down.]

    That’s more than the bible ever did, yet for some reason you people claim that it’s your worldview that is the basis for logic.

    [Dr. Lisle: How else could you account for the universal, invariant, exception-less nature of laws of logic, or the mind’s ability to access them, or the fact that the physical universe never violates one? How can any worldview apart from Christianity make sense of such things?]

    How can that be, when your worldview’s holy book doesn’t even describe them?

    [Dr. Lisle: That is like saying, “How can a foundation support a house? I mean, a foundation doesn’t even describe a house?” It just doesn’t make any logical sense. A foundation supports a house whether it has the details of the house or not. The Scriptures provide the rational basis for why there are laws of logic, even though it doesn’t give a complete list of such laws.]

    [From Scripture we can explain why, as one example, there is a law of non-contradiction. Namely, all truth is in God (Colossians 2:3), and God never denies (contradicts) Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). Hence, truth will never contradict truth. And since God does not change with time, the law of non-contradiction will not change. Since God is sovereign over the universe, the law of non-contradiction will apply everywhere. Since we are made in God’s image, we have access to some of His laws, etc. etc. etc.]

    • the_ignored says:

      Apart from the biblical God, there would have been nothing for the Greeks to discover. The existence and properties of laws of logic are justified only in the Christian worldview, regardless of who uses such laws or first wrote them down.
      What’s to stop a believer in a different god from claiming the exact same thing?

      [Dr. Lisle: the fact that only the biblical God has the characteristics that make knowledge possible. I have written a book on this: the Ultimate Proof of Creation. This would help bring you up to speed on the relevant issues.]

      Are you joking with this next line? The analogy doesn’t fit at all:
      That is like saying, “How can a foundation support a house? I mean, a foundation doesn’t even describe a house?”
      It’s not actually the foundation’s job. It’s to hold the house up.

      [Dr. Lisle: Exactly. Neither does the Bible claim to describe or list specific laws of logic. Rather, it provides the rational justification for them.]

      The laws of logic are in your view, just parts of the “world” that your god created. It would make sense that if your worldview is to take credit for them that their should be some evidence for it in the bible. At least you try, later on…

      [Dr. Lisle: No. Laws of logic are reflections of the way that God thinks. This is why the universe never violates one, since it is upheld by the mind of God. The Bible isn’t a textbook on logic; rather it is the foundation that makes logic possible.]

      It just doesn’t make any logical sense. A foundation supports a house whether it has the details of the house or not. The Scriptures provide the rational basis for why there are laws of logic, even though it doesn’t give a complete list of such laws.
      Actually the foundation to a small extent does describe the house. It’s shape, and it’s size. Though not the number of floors it may have.

      [Dr. Lisle: No. A foundation does not have the linguistic ability to describe anything. Only people, or by proxy their written words, can do so. The secular worldview cannot justify the existence or properties of laws of logic.]

      From Scripture we can explain why, as one example, there is a law of non-contradiction. Namely, all truth is in God (Colossians 2:3), and God never denies (contradicts) Himself (2 Timothy 2:13).
      If “all truth” is in god, then what about the time he told the prophet Samuel to lie to Saul about the reason he was going out to David’s families place?
      1 Samuel 16:1-12

      [Dr. Lisle: This is especially irrational. First, God can authorize someone to do something that He would not do. Second, why would you assume that Samuel did not sacrifice? Third, this has no logical bearing on all truth being found in Christ.]

      Hence, truth will never contradict truth. And since God does not change with time,the law of non-contradiction will not change.
      Oh? What about the times when god “repented” of things that he had done?
      Genesis 6:6
      Exodus 32:14
      Jeremiah 18:8
      2 Samuel 24:16
      Jonah 3:10

      [Dr. Lisle: “Repent” can either mean to feel bad/hurt which God does feel when we sin, as in Genesis 6. So that doesn’t prove your point. Moreover, some of God’s promises are conditional: IF people continue to sin, then God promises to punish them. But if they repent, then God forgives. Of course God knew this would happen, but from our perspective we could see it as God changing His mind. But fundamentally, God never actually changes His mind about anything (Numbers 23:19). And it’s a good thing! If He did, then we would have no reason at all to trust that laws of logic will work tomorrow.]

      Besides, is there any evidence that the bible writers knew that they were describing basic observations of reality? The greeks knew that, and they explicitly said so. The bible is just nattering on about god here.

      [Dr. Lisle: That’s a question-begging epithet if ever there was one. I could say that about you, but that wouldn’t really advance the dialog.]

      At best, you could maybe say that the bible gives examples of some of the laws of logic, but not that it’s actually laying them out.

      [Dr. Lisle: Please address what I actually write without distorting it – that would be a straw-man fallacy. I never claimed the Bible “laid out” the laws of logic. Rather, the Bible gives the justification for the existence and properties of laws of logic. In other words, laws of logic and their properties could not be justified apart from the Christian worldview. See my conversation with Tony on this blog for examples.]

      Even if god “changed”, why would you think that the law of non-contradiction would also change? Is god somehow holding the laws of logic in place or something? Are they physical things that have to somehow be maintained?

      [Dr. Lisle: laws of logic are a reflection of God’s thinking. So if God changes, then by definition laws of logic would change. Fortunately, God is beyond time. And so you can have confidence that laws of logic will continue to work tomorrow.]

      Since God is sovereign over the universe, the law of non-contradiction will apply everywhere. Since we are made in God’s image, we have access to some of His laws, etc. etc. etc.
      Again: is god somehow holding the laws of logic in place or something? Are they physical things that have to somehow be maintained?

      [Dr. Lisle: They are not physical. Your thoughts are non-physical, but cannot exist without you. Likewise, God’s thoughts as reflected in laws of logic, cannot exist apart from Him.]

  12. the_ignored says:

    It just hit me: There’s another problem with the “starlight and time” issue than just the speed of light itself.

    There’s the fact that there are pictures of galaxies out there that are in the process of colliding with each other.
    http://www.space.com/12637-stunning-galaxy-collision-photos.html

    How long do you think that those processes last, for galaxies to drift closer together, then to hit and go through each other.

    [Dr. Lisle: I’d like to challenge you to think about the many assumptions you must make for this type of argument to make any sense. One: how do you know that God didn’t create galaxies already in the process of collision? Adam was created as an adult. Apart from the Christian worldview, how could you possibly know that laws of physics are even the same in distant galaxies as they are on Earth?]

    A lot more then 6000 years, I daresay, unless one shows that somehow all the stars within those galaxies are themselves moving faster than light? Or maybe one of the “explanations” that you people will eventually come up with to explain away the starlight distance problem will also work there?

    [Dr. Lisle: These galaxies have blue O-type stars in their spiral arms. Such stars cannot last millions of years, let alone billions, and we’ve never observed one forming. Moreover, the spiral structure of spiral galaxies is not consistent with billions of years. Since all the evidence is on our side, I don’t think I need to explain anything.]

    Good luck. Not our fault that you YEC’s have to stick to a statement of faith that forces you people to disregard at non-valid any evidence that goes against what you have already decided to believe.

    [Dr. Lisle: Amazing. That’s just what I was thinking about you.]

    Normal scientists don’t have to twist themselves into knots like you people do when it comes to starlight. For them: It’s just another piece of evidence of the vast age of the universe.

    [Dr. Lisle: It would seem that you are unfamiliar with the horizon problem. Interesting. It also appears you don’t know about the Oort Cloud, spiral density waves, planetary magnetic dynamos, etc. – all attempts by secularists to explain away the overwhelming evidence for the biblical age of the universe. Ah well. I also detect a hint of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. A book on logic might be helpful to you. Particularly my book “Discerning Truth.”]

    • the_ignored says:

      I’d like to challenge you to think about the many assumptions you must make for this type of argument to make any sense. One: how do you know that God didn’t create galaxies already in the process of collision? Adam was created as an adult.
      Look at all the assumptions you just made above. Can you back up any of them? Or do they all require that you already accept as a given the xian god?

      [Dr. Lisle: I don’t think I made any assumptions above; I just asked you the basis for all the assumptions you had made. If you want to make an argument that galaxies require millions of years, I’ll be happy to listen. But you must provide some rational foundation for your claims. If you just assert them arbitrarily, then I can rationally dismiss them.]

      Is that how you got your doctorate? “god made them in the process of already doing that”?

      [Dr. Lisle: I got my doctorate by doing science – which includes the questioning of assumptions. For some reason, you have assumed that God cannot or would not create galaxies in the process of collision. I want to know if you have a rational basis for that assertion, or if you merely believe it for no reason at all, like a child who thinks there is a monster in the closet for no good reason.]

      If you were not a christian, what would those pictures of colliding galaxies tell you about the age of the universe?

      [Dr. Lisle: Answer – nothing. Apart from the Christian worldview, I would have no rational basis to believe that my senses are reliable, that the universe obeys the same laws of nature at galactic distances that it does here, or that my mind has the capacity to draw any rational inferences from observations. These are all inherently biblical concepts. In a chance universe, science would not be possible.]

      Apart from the Christian worldview, how could you possibly know that laws of physics are even the same in distant galaxies as they are on Earth?
      What’s to stop any other religion from claiming the same thing about their worldview?

      [Dr. Lisle: This doesn’t answer my question.]

      And what makes you think that the laws of physics would be different in a different galaxy?

      [Dr. Lisle: Why would they be the same? After all, conditions are very different in different parts of the universe. Why would there be any laws at all in a chance universe? A rational person does not arbitrarily assume something just because he or she wants to believe it. You’re supposed to have good reasons for your beliefs. Do you?]

      How would the universe have formed if we didn’t have at consistent laws at the macro level?

      [Dr. Lisle: How do you know that consistent laws are required for the creation of a universe? Can you provide some examples: universes that we have observed coming into existence with consistent laws? Why would there be any laws of nature at all apart from God?]

      How could things work at all if the laws of physics weren’t consistent on a macro level?

      [Dr. Lisle: You are not answering my question. I do believe that laws of physics are consistent because they represent the systematic and logical way that God upholds the universe. My question is: apart from God why would there be any reason to suspect such orderly laws of physics in the universe? And how do you know?]

      I know things get loops with quantum mechanics (ie. at really small sizes) and black holes, but at least, unlike with your assumption above, they’ve been shown.

      [Dr. Lisle: I’m not sure what you mean here. The universe obeys laws at the quantum level too. How could that be apart from Christianity?]

      Good luck. Not our fault that you YEC’s have to stick to a statement of faith that forces you people to disregard at non-valid any evidence that goes against what you have already decided to believe.
      Amazing. That’s just what I was thinking about you.
      I’m not the one who actually has to take such an oath, Lisle, it’s you people. See the statement of faith your compatriots at ICR, CMI, and AIG have to take as a precondition of employment.

      [Dr. Lisle: This is the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. Many, many people have been fired for no other reason than they are creationists. See “Expelled.” Many secularists have an unstated statement of belief that they require people to believe if they are going to remain employed. Evolutionists are very good at dismissing evidence that is contrary to their belief system.]

      Look at you effort to dodge the “galaxy colliding” problem: ” how do you know that God didn’t create galaxies already in the process of collision?”.

      [Dr. Lisle: What “problem?” In order for there to be a problem, you must give some actual evidence that such galaxies did not start very near their current configuration. So far you haven’t been able to do that. As yet, there is nothing to “dodge” because you haven’t presented a complete argument.]

      The very idea that the process may have taken longer than 6000 years is something you have to avoid because it contradicts the biblical view. And to think one of the commentators later says that you actually dealt with that problem!

      [Dr. Lisle: Actually, given the abundant evidence for thousands of years (e.g. c-14 in diamonds, comets, spiral galaxies, recession of the moon, decay of planetary magnetic fields, etc., etc.) you must be very very committed to your belief in evolution to dismiss all this. And again, there is no problem for colliding galaxies unless you have some evidence that they started in a very different configuration. Of course, you have no basis for science or logic in your worldview anyway.]

      Nice try at “I know you are but what am I” playground logic.

      [Dr. Lisle: No, that would be a tu quoque fallacy. I do have many good reasons to believe that the universe is thousands of years old. You have yet to give any good reason at all for the reverse. Nor have you given any reason showing how science would even be possible in your worldview. So it’s not “you too” but rather “you only.”]

      Think: If the evidence was truly on your side: Why would those oaths be necessary?

      [Dr. Lisle: The evidence is on our side. And I don’t recall ever having to take an oath.]

      Real scientists don’t take any such oaths. If they do, I defy you to find such an oath.

      [Dr. Lisle: That’s a “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Scientists will indeed take an oath when appearing as an expert witness in a trial, for example. They swear to tell the truth “so help me God.” In doing so, they are asking God to hold them accountable for what they say. This would be meaningless apart from the biblical worldview.]

      Ah well. I also detect a hint of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
      Oh do please show me where.

      [Dr. Lisle: When you wrote: “Normal scientists don’t have to twist themselves into knots like you people do when it comes to starlight. For them: It’s just another piece of evidence of the vast age of the universe.” That’s the no true Scotsman fallacy because there is nothing in the definition of “scientist” that disallows the creation of auxiliary hypotheses needed to protect an existing paradigm from evidence that appears contrary. If it were, then anyone who believes in an Oort cloud, cosmic inflation, planetary dynamos, etc. cannot be a “normal scientist” because all of these ideas were invented when observational evidence was discovered that is contrary to billions-of-years.]

      These galaxies have blue O-type stars in their spiral arms.
      They’re not the only such stars in every spiral arm, though eh?

      [Dr. Lisle: No. But they place an upper limit on the age that is much, much less than the secular view. Red stars need not be old, though they can theoretically burn for a very long time. So they are not an age indicator one way or the other. But blue stars cannot be old because they cannot burn for a long time. So if you have a system of red and blue stars, that system cannot be old. Clear?]

      Such stars cannot last millions of years, let alone billions, and we’ve never observed one forming.
      Given that overall they are rare and short-lived, it’s not a big surprise.

      [Dr. Lisle: It’s not surprising if you are a creationists. But in secular thinking, our galaxy is 10 billion years old, and has around 200 billion stars. So, on average, you’d expect to see about 20 new stars form per year. We’ve been doing astronomy with telescopes for 400 years. Care to guess how many new stars we’ve seen forming?]

      On the other hand, they are in regions of active star formation.

      [Dr. Lisle: No. Do you know why regions containing many blue stars are called “star forming regions” in some textbooks? It is not because astronomers see stars forming there. It is because they see evidence of youth: lots of blue stars which everyone agrees cannot last billions of years. Since secularists need to believe in billions of years as part of their worldview, they assume that blue stars must have formed recently – despite the fact that no one has ever seen it happen, despite the fact that gas pressure in an average volume of space far exceeds the force of gravity, despite the magnetic pressure which resists star formation, despite the angular momentum which resists star formation. In other words, secular astronomers are forced to believe in star formation despite the evidence because they are unwilling to accept the evidence for the youth of the universe at face value.]

      3 to 6 million years is their lifespan I’m told. Even ignoring everything else, that’s kind of longer than the 6000 years your belief system allows you.

      [Dr. Lisle: You seem to have misunderstood the argument. The ~million year lifespan is the upper limit on age – not the actual age. For example, suppose someone claims that a man named Bill is 100,000 years old. Another person claims that Bill is only 20 years old. It would be perfectly logical to point out that the first person cannot be right, because people just don’t live much longer than about ~120 years or so – maximum. But the second person could very well be right, since 20 years is less than the maximum age of people. Clear?]

      [Incidentally, there are other processes in the universe that can’t go much beyond 10,000 years or so – such as the decay of planetary magnetic fields.]

      Besides, “M”-type stars take a billion years just to form.

      [Dr. Lisle: This is the fallacy of begging the question – you are assuming that the biblical worldview is wrong as part of your argument that the biblical worldview is wrong. In logic you are not supposed to arbitrarily assume the very thing you are attempting to prove. In the biblical worldview stars were created by God in a single day (Genesis 1:14-19).]

      Moreover, the spiral structure of spiral galaxies is not consistent with billions of years. Since all the evidence is on our side, I don’t think I need to explain anything.
      Not only is that not true…see below, but you still have yet to explain the problem of galaxies colliding without putting your god in the premise of your “solution” (ie. he made them like that in the first place).

      [Dr. Lisle: You are begging the question again. First, galaxies colliding is not a problem at all in my worldview, and you have yet to give any actual reason why it would be. Second, you are asking me to provide an explanation for the beginning that doesn’t involve God. But of course, that would be irrational. In my worldview God created the universe. It would be like me asking you to prove that God does not exist, but using only the Bible, and doing it in a way that is compatible with Genesis. If you have a logical argument against my worldview, I will be happy to respond.]

      Why would he do that?

      [Dr. Lisle: This is the fallacy of irrelevant thesis. It’s a bit like saying, “I don’t know why Joe eats spinach for breakfast. Therefore, Joe does not exist.” God isn’t required to explain Himself to you, even assuming that you could understand his explanation. But there is nothing irrational about a God of infinite understanding creating a universe that is functional from the beginning.]

      It gives a false appearance of age.

      [Dr. Lisle: No. When God created the universe, He had to start it in some condition. And it is always possible for us to imagine a (false) previous condition that could have led up to that condition by natural processes. For example, God created Adam as an adult. But if you could travel back and ask Adam how old he “looked” after the first day, he wouldn’t say “30 years.” He would probably answer, “I guess I look one day old. This is what a one-day old looks like.” Now if we falsely assume that Adam grew from a baby, as people do today, and we vastly overestimate his age, this is not deception on God’s part. It is fallacious reasoning on our part.]

      [In addition, there are many indications of the youth of the universe. I’ve already mentioned some. Blue stars and spiral galaxies “look” young. So the real question you should be asking is: “If the universe is really billions of years old, then why did God make it look so young?]

      Isn’t your god the foundation for “logic” and “truth”??

      [Dr. Lisle: Yes. He’s your God too actually.]

      At least with “adam” he could remember that he came into being as an “adult”. Not so with us and the stars, now, eh?

      [Dr. Lisle: Yes. God started humanity with two people, instructed us to go and multiple. Not so with the stars. As far as I can tell, the stars were all created on day 4.]

      If the universe was truly 6000 years old, we shouldn’t see anything beyond 6000 light years.

      [Dr. Lisle: No, though that is commonly believed. It is based on a number of assumptions, including an isotropic synchrony convention. Remember how I encouraged you to investigate your own starting assumptions?
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention

      Horizon Problem?
      http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/HorizonProblem.html
      Dealt with. Next?

      [Dr. Lisle: It’s not quite that simple. This answer invokes cosmic inflation, which has problems of its own – such as the graceful exit problem. An increasing number of secular astronomers are rejecting inflation due to its many problems – leaving the horizon problem unsolved.]

      spiral density waves?
      A reference to the so-called “winding problem” which you referenced above regarding how spiral galaxies could not be billions of years old, right?

      http://www.universetoday.com/86056/testing-the-spiral-density-wave-theory/
      This contradicts the previous studies (which were done “by eye” and thus subject to potential bias) and casts doubt on long lived spiral structure as predicted by the Lin-Shu theory. Instead, this finding is in agreement with the possibility of transient spiral arms that break apart and reform periodically.

      [Dr. Lisle: That won’t work because the magnetic field lines are parallel to the spiral arms. If the spiral arms break apart and then reform, this wouldn’t be the case because magnetic reconnection would occur.]

      They mention another theory right after…so what’s the problem?

      [Dr. Lisle: Same problem – the magnetic field lines go along with the spiral structure. Plasma cannot travel across a magnetic field line, hence, the actual material is spiraling tighter with time, and cannot be accounted for with a density wave.]

      Either way, they’ve got observations to back them up.

      [Dr. Lisle: No, the observations back up the notion that spiral galaxies cannot be billions of years old. These density wave hypothesis is just one of a handful of conjectures that attempt to rescue the idea of billions of years from what appears to be very strong evidence to the contrary. Earlier you had written, Normal scientists don’t have to twist themselves into knots like you people do…” Hopefully you now see that this just isn’t the case. Secular scientists do have to invoke a large number of unsubstantiated and problematic conjectures in order to protect their beliefs from obvious evidence to the contrary.]

      As does the “density wave theory”.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory
      see Further implications.

      [Dr. Lisle: By the way, Wikipedia really isn’t the most reliable or scholarly source of information. It isn’t peer-reviewed, at least not consistently. Notice that their explanation assumes star formation, which as I have previously shown is very problematic. The article also doesn’t mention any of the problems with the density wave hypothesis – such as the previously mentioned magnetic fields, the tight spiral structure of the core of some galaxies, and the backwards rotating spirals of some galaxies – all of which are contrary to the predictions of the spiral density wave hypothesis. The article gives the false impression that the winding problem has been solved.]

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-process-creates-and

      [Dr. Lisle: The source is somewhat better, but this also ignores many of the problems. However, I appreciated the more honest approach, and that they admit, “Precisely what pulls on what to make the arms develop, the how part of your question, is much harder. There are several competing theories, all of which undoubtedly contain elements of truth, but none has gained wide acceptance.” It’s a real problem in the secular view. But of course, we creationists do not need to tie ourselves up in knots over this, because the evidence fits very naturally with our worldview.]

      Oort Cloud
      Trans-Neptunian objects are evidence of this.

      [Dr. Lisle: No. Perhaps you were thinking of the Kuiper Belt, though even this is problematic. The Oort cloud is supposed to be an enormous sphere of trillions of comet-sized icy bodies orbiting between 5,000 AU and 50,000 AU from the sun. For comparison, Neptune orbits at 30 AU, and the trans-Neptunian objects also lie at about the distance.]

      As are the few Oort Cloud objects they’ve found:
      Sedna
      2000 Cr105
      2006 SQ372
      2008 KV42

      [Dr. Lisle: No, these are all well inside the inner boundary of the supposed Oort cloud, and they are much larger than comet nuclei. Sedna, for example, has an average distance of 500 AU, and is 1000 km in diameter! A typical comet nucleus is about 10 km in diameter.]

      Something else about comets:
      If there were no source for new comets to come from, all comets would have the same age. They do not. Some are young and have lots of gasses; others are little more than gravel heaps.

      [Dr. Lisle: I appreciate the attempt. But in fact, all comets are the same age. They are all day 4 creations, and the evidence is consistent with that. But different comets have different orbits. And therefore, they weather differently. It is much like the fact that cars rust far faster in Ohio than in Colorado. Ohio gets more rain, and they salt the roads in the winter. This contributes to faster rusting. Two cars may be the same age, but the car in Ohio is far more weathered than its counterpart in Colorado. Comets that orbit closer to the sun tend to have fewer volatiles, just as we would expect.]

      If you want to see examples of people who refuse all contrary evidence, I advise you to look at the statements of faith that your fellows at the ICR, CMI, and AIG have to sign where you promise to never accept as valid any evidence that goes against the bible.

      [Dr. Lisle: I don’t know if you realize the irony of what you just wrote. I have presented some very powerful examples of evidence that is contrary to billions of years. Now, are you going to accept that evidence? Or will you refuse to accept evidence that goes against your personal statement of faith?]

  13. J. says:

    Kudos to the__ignored. I applaud your efforts but you are wasting your time. Neither the Doctor nor Josef nor any of the other apologists will ever admit the inherent silliness of their views because to do so would require a degree of intellectual honesty they are not capable of. They have decided to forge reality in favour of their mythology. My advice would be to just walk away and leave them to their fantasies. It is a pity that the Doctor has chosen to waste his intelligence on such a nonsensical pursuit. Imagine what he might have achieved if he had done something meaningful with his life.

    • Jim says:

      Hi J and the_ignored, your comments reveal shallow arrogance and self aggrandizement. Until you have the intellectual honesty and introspection to understand your own depravity and self delusion, you cannot judge the meaningfulness of another’s life pursuits. What is the basis of your standard?

      Your contempt is misplaced. Josef, Micah, and Dr. Lisle seem to pursue that which glorifies the Almighty Lord and a hope of a life ever after. You, however, seem to think a hope in nothing is preferable and logical…how silly is that.

      • the_ignored says:

        Hi J and the_ignored, your comments reveal shallow arrogance and self aggrandizement. Until you have the intellectual honesty and introspection to understand your own depravity and self delusion, you cannot judge the meaningfulness of another’s life pursuits. What is the basis of your standard?
        It’s been told: …caring for future generations of the human race, empathy for others (imagining what you would feel if you were the victim), treating others well so that you are treated well, keeping society together, caring for friends and family, etc.

        You just refuse to accept it because you need a god from on high to tell you to care for other people.

        As I recall, Jim it was Micah who said that if god told him to kill babies that it would be immoral not to.

        At least abortionists draw the line at the baby being born…you people don’t, not when “god” tells you to kill them.

        And we are the ones who are depraved? Really?

        Your contempt is misplaced. Josef, Micah, and Dr. Lisle seem to pursue that which glorifies the Almighty Lord and a hope of a life ever after. You, however, seem to think a hope in nothing is preferable and logical…how silly is that.
        What’s silly is your usage of the fallacy of “consequences of belief”. What one wants to be true has no bearing on what is true.

        We have hope while we’re alive, and we’re not throwing that away on a disproven book of fairy tales. Not unless you people can come up with better evidence than this “presuppositional” garbage I’ve been seeing here.

        (ex. “god is the necessary precondition for logic”)

        • Brian Forbes says:

          Good day, sir.

          I wanted to commend you for your debate skills. I think you’re doing a fine job. Your points are clear and convincing. I do think, though, that you may have clumped a broad category too closely together in saying things like this:
          “You just refuse to accept it because you need a god from on high to tell you to care for other people.”

          I don’t think you would say it’s fair for me to claim that any atheist only keeps moral codes because the nation’s laws tell them to and that they fear getting caught. Some people really do think it’s wrong to hurt people. The laws are written for those whose moral compass is broken. I don’t have a problem with never using lethal force to get my way. I have never done it, never want to do it, and as I’ve thought it through, I don’t think I am likely to find myself in a situation where killing the man I’m dealing with is the best option. I don’t necessarily need to read the Bible to have or avoid those inclinations. Other impulses, though, are different. In my early young adulthood, I found that a secret addiction to pornography didn’t seem to hurt anyone, and as I indulged, it seemed that the pleasure overwhelmed my culture’s moral judgment, and I practiced that sin whenever possible. I have found it true that the ignorance of my early adulthood started me down a path of misery and self-centered indifference. I really hurt my wife when she discovered my addiction. By God’s grace and a lot of “cutting off the hand”, I can now say I’m free of that addiction, and I’m a better man for it. For reasons I won’t list here, I found that Jesus’ command not to look at an inaccessible woman lustfully and Lev. 18 (to not uncover the nakedness) were very wise counsel.

          Here’s the point. I did not need instructions on murder. I did need instructions on pornography. It may well be true that atheists don’t need the Bible to tell them not to murder (in general, as some of them probably do), they do need the Bible to tell them not to bear false witness. I mean, what atheist doesn’t lie once in a while. You may not be murdering people regularly, but you have sin in your life.

          Now, I’ll pray that you are able to see the value of Scriptural morals. It doesn’t appear we’re going to talk you into them. You need a God style revelation. Keep yourself open. God will respect your boundaries. When people say that Christianity is a relationship, they’re not lying, at least some of them aren’t. Talk to God as though He’s there, and if you try hard enough, He will reveal Himself in ways that only He can. (Then again, maybe you don’t have to try at all. God doesn’t always do things in a predictable way.) God is a very convincing debater – even better than you are. Beware, God will hide is face from sinful people. (Isa. 59)

          • the_ignored says:

            I do think, though, that you may have clumped a broad category too closely together in saying things like this:
            “You just refuse to accept it because you need a god from on high to tell you to care for other people.”

            Read various apologetics works from AIG, CMI, etc. They are constantly saying things that work out to: without god, there is no reason for morality.

            AIG has an relevant billboard with this topic.

            Your problem is with them, not with me who just points it out.

            It may well be true that atheists don’t need the Bible to tell them not to murder (in general, as some of them probably do), they do need the Bible to tell them not to bear false witness. I mean, what atheist doesn’t lie once in a while. You may not be murdering people regularly, but you have sin in your life.
            Many cultures have taboos against lying…xians are not the only ones.

            The bible in many cases, tells people who to murder! Only it’s OK when god tells you to do it. Remember verses like “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”? As well as the other various OT stuff?

            Ah, yes “scriptural morals” about not bearing false witness. For example: Bodie Hodge of Answers in Genesis says that it’d would have been sinful to lie to germans about hiding Jews from them during WWII.
            http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/11/13/feedback-righteous-lie

            Yeah. good ol’ “scriptural morality”.

            Now, I’ll pray that you are able to see the value of Scriptural morals. It doesn’t appear we’re going to talk you into them. You need a God style revelation. Keep yourself open.
            Scriptural “morals” are what lead religious people to defend acts of genocide, including pregnant woman and babies, whole loudly proclaiming themselves to be “pro-life”.

            Scriptural “morals” are what lead to men saying that women should not be in positions of authority over men as that verse in Timothy said.

            Scriptural “morals” are what helped bolster the slave-owning states in the South because there are no verses in the bible forbidding slavery while many verse endorse it.

            This, by the way, is one of the reasons why skeptics fight. We don’t need this as a society.

        • Micah says:

          Hi J and the_ignored, your comments reveal shallow arrogance and self aggrandizement. Until you have the intellectual honesty and introspection to understand your own depravity and self delusion, you cannot judge the meaningfulness of another’s life pursuits. What is the basis of your standard?
          It’s been told: …caring for future generations of the human race, empathy for others (imagining what you would feel if you were the victim), treating others well so that you are treated well, keeping society together, caring for friends and family, etc.

          That is hardly a basis. Why, on your worldview, is caring for future generations the moral thing? Why not do the exact opposite? I think you are going to find this very hard to answer logically. All these things you listed except for maybe ‘treating others well so that you are treated well’ (thats not moral, its selfish) are very good things to do and are logically justified in the Christian worldview where God has made humans in his image and we all have equal value. But apart from God, why should we believe that people have any more value than a rock?

          You just refuse to accept it because you need a god from on high to tell you to care for other people.

          We refuse to accept it because you are being irrational and not providing any basis for your morality.

          As I recall, Jim it was Micah who said that if god told him to kill babies that it would be immoral not to.

          Can you give me a logically sound explanation for why killing at all is wrong in your worldview?

          At least abortionists draw the line at the baby being born…you people don’t, not when “god” tells you to kill them.

          An arbitrary line that makes no sense from an atheistic/evolutionary view, why is the line drawn there? Why not draw the line at age 10, or 80?

          And we are the ones who are depraved? Really?

          Everyone is depraved (Psalms 14:3).

          We have hope while we’re alive, and we’re not throwing that away on a disproven book of fairy tales.

          If it is so disproven, what are you even doing here? As Jason has said before, you reveal your suppressed knowledge of God.

          Not unless you people can come up with better evidence than this “presuppositional” garbage I’ve been seeing here.
          (ex. “god is the necessary precondition for logic”)

          And yet you have yet to make a logical rebuttal to it.

          • the_ignored says:

            You just refuse to accept it because you need a god from on high to tell you to care for other people.
            We refuse to accept it because you are being irrational and not providing any basis for your morality.
            See what I say right below. By the way, how is working to prevent humanity’s extinction “irrational”?

            What’s truly “irrational” is for you religious types who call yourselves “pro-life” yet you have no problem with killing kids when your god orders it.

            As I recall, Jim it was Micah who said that if god told him to kill babies that it would be immoral not to.
            Can you give me a logically sound explanation for why killing at all is wrong in your worldview?
            If we kill each other all off, then there will be no more human race? That good enough? Silly me…I know it won’t be.

            Again, I give a basis, and you keep pretending that I’ve given none.

            At least abortionists draw the line at the baby being born…you people don’t, not when “god” tells you to kill them.
            An arbitrary line that makes no sense from an atheistic/evolutionary view, why is the line drawn there? Why not draw the line at age 10, or 80?
            Because killing kids kind of works against the whole proaogation of the human race thing, and elderly people have been through enough that they don’t deserve it.

            Though without god to tell you, you don’t have the empathy to care on your own it seems.

            We have hope while we’re alive, and we’re not throwing that away on a disproven book of fairy tales.
            If it is so disproven, what are you even doing here? As Jason has said before, you reveal your suppressed knowledge of God.
            So when you xians go running around trying to preach to everyone you are revealing your suppressed knowledge that there is no god?

            Here’s why we fight: You people assume that the health of the world is no problem because “christ will come soon”.

            You people persecute and ridicule non-believers and want to deny civil liberties to homosexuals, etc. In other words, your policy decisions affect everyone instead of just yourselves.

            (ex. “god is the necessary precondition for logic”)
            And yet you have yet to make a logical rebuttal to it.
            You have yet to make a logical case for it. Other than a bald assertion.

            What’s to stop any other religion from claiming the same of their god?

            • Josef says:

              the ignored: “If we kill each other all off, then there will be no more human race? That good enough? Silly me…I know it won’t be.

              Why should we care whether or not the human race goes extinct? What gives humans any more value than a flesh-eating bacteria? You would like flesh-eating bacteria to go extinct, wouldn’t you? Why be so cruel to bacteria but not to humans? I’ll ask again: can you give me an actual reason on what objectively gives human beings more value than bacteria or a rock? Will you actually answer this challenge? Silly me, I know you won’t.

              the ignored: “Again, I give a basis, and you keep pretending that I’ve given none.

              It’s not about simply giving a basis, but it must be a rational & objective basis. Yes, you do indeed have a “basis” for your morality; unfortunately it’s subjective and arbitrary.

              the ignored: “Because killing kids kind of works against the whole proaogation of the human race thing, and elderly people have been through enough that they don’t deserve it.

              Once again, why should we care about the propagation of the human race? And the elderly don’t “deserve” it? Who decides who “deserves” what? Again, in your atheistic worldview, concepts such as “fair” (i.e. deserve) does not comport. With your words you may espouse atheism, but by your actions, you show that you know your worldview is false.

              the ignored: “Though without god to tell you, you don’t have the empathy to care on your own it seems.

              Even if this were true, who cares? In the atheistic worldview people are no different than bacteria in terms of their value. Where did you get this idea that caring for the human race is the “moral” thing to do? Your worldview is bankrupt for answers to these fundamental questions. Concepts of morality that you seem to cling to and apparently expect everyone else to do not comport with atheism, but instead comport with the Christian worldview.

              the ignored: “So when you xians go running around trying to preach to everyone you are revealing your suppressed knowledge that there is no god?

              Actually if you think this is a reversible claim you must (surprise, surprise!) provide a rational justification for making such a claim. We have provided such evidence to demonstrate that you are suppressing the truth of God’s existence. Because:

              1. only the Christian worldview can provide the preconditions of intelligibility that you are clinging to.

              2. You keep adhering to some moral standard that you expect everyone to abide by but you fail to provide a rational & objective basis for. And

              3. if atheism were true, then there would be no such thing as “right” or “wrong”. At best, such concepts of morality would boil down to opinion. And if you truly believed it was opinion, it wouldn’t bother you so much. After all, you wouldn’t get so upset if someone claimed to like a different flavor of ice-cream that yourself.

              But the reason you don’t truly think morality is opinion-based is because you know the biblical God and you know that atheism is false.

              the ignored: “Here’s why we fight: You people assume that the health of the world is no problem because “christ will come soon”.

              Actually that doesn’t make sense. First off all, Christians hold to different positions on eschatology. And if atheism is true, then it makes no sense at all why you fight. Why do anything at all? Even if you’re right and we arere wrong, what difference does it ultimately make? Once we’re all dead, we wouldn’t have a care at all anymore. In fact, all of our debates on here will be meaningless to us, because we won’t have any concept of ever being alive, nor will we have any concept of being dead. However, it makes sense that the Christian “fight the good fight” because we know that what we believe have eternal consequences. We fight, because once we die, it’s not over. The fact that atheists “fight it out” shows that you do not really believe that death is the end.

              the ignored: “You people persecute and ridicule non-believers and want to deny civil liberties to homosexuals, etc. In other words, your policy decisions affect everyone instead of just yourselves.”

              Actually we didn’t deny homosexuals anything. They have just as many rights as heterosexuals. A heterosexual male cannot legally marry another male unless the state has the rights for gays to “marry”. What the homosexuals want are more rights; rights that heterosexuals previously didn’t have either.

              Also, once again, even if what you say is true, why would it be wrong to treat one group unfairly compared to anther? I have to point out again that in the atheistic worldview, such concepts of “fair” do not have any logical basis.

              the ignored: “You have yet to make a logical case for it. Other than a bald assertion.

              What’s to stop any other religion from claiming the same of their god?

              Yes we have, but apparently you have your head in the sand. Let’s start with logic, for example. Logic is neither matter nor energy, and it is not contingent upon the material (i.e. physical) universe. Yet logic exists. As a Christian, I have no problem with accepting such an invariant, universal and immaterial concepts exist because in the Christian worldview, God himself has these properties. However, logic is a big contradiction to the atheistic worldview. How does logic exist in a universe made of matter & energy when logic itself is neither?

              And other religions can make this claim. Anyone can simply make claims. What they will not be able to do is actually demonstrate how their views (yours included) actually do justify the preconditions for intelligibility.

              • Micah says:

                Thanks Josef, couldn’t have said it better myself, and you saved me the hassle of having to write a reply.

                Micah

                • the_ignored says:

                  Micah and Joseph: Everytime you people ask something like:

                  Why should we care whether or not the human race goes extinct? What gives humans any more value than a flesh-eating bacteria? You would like flesh-eating bacteria to go extinct, wouldn’t you? Why be so cruel to bacteria but not to humans?
                  all you do is prove how depraved your worldview is: Without your “god” telling you to, you people see no value in human life.

                  I wouldn’t care except that’s what you teach your kids, isn’t it?

                  As a Christian, I have no problem with accepting such an invariant, universal and immaterial concepts exist because in the Christian worldview, God himself has these properties. However, logic is a big contradiction to the atheistic worldview. How does logic exist in a universe made of matter & energy when logic itself is neither?
                  Again, what’s to stop any other religion from claiming the same about their god being the basis for logic?

                  Besides: Your god supposedly became flesh, did he not? Can “logic” do that?

                  There are a world of differences between the qualities of “logic” and your god. For one thing, God in the bible actually repented of many of the things he did. Not too consistent.

                  As for atheism, what makes you think that people can’t imagine or think up of immaterial ideas just because we ourselves are material?

                  Are you going to claim that the concepts of mathematics is also evidence of your god?

                  Gah, this is stupid.

                • Micah says:

                  Hi,

                  Micah and Joseph: Everytime you people ask something like:
                  Why should we care whether or not the human race goes extinct? What gives humans any more value than a flesh-eating bacteria? You would like flesh-eating bacteria to go extinct, wouldn’t you? Why be so cruel to bacteria but not to humans?
                  all you do is prove how depraved your worldview is: Without your “god” telling you to,

                  Without ‘God’ telling us what to do, there would be no basis for behaving morally, as you keep confirming with your constant inability to provide a logical basis.

                  you people see no value in human life.

                  But we do see value in human life, because God has created all of us in his image and loves us all.
                  Now i’ll ask again, apart from God, what would be the basis for behaving morally? Can you answer that objectively and not just give me an opinion?

                  I wouldn’t care except that’s what you teach your kids, isn’t it?

                  Since atheism doesn’t have any basis for morality, why would you care what we teach our kids? (I’m not married btw)

                  As a Christian, I have no problem with accepting such an invariant, universal and immaterial concepts exist because in the Christian worldview, God himself has these properties. However, logic is a big contradiction to the atheistic worldview. How does logic exist in a universe made of matter & energy when logic itself is neither?
                  Again, what’s to stop any other religion from claiming the same about their god being the basis for logic?

                  I see you didn’t answer the question. Logic doesn’t make any sense in the atheistic worldview. How do the immaterial things (such as laws of logic) exist in a strictly material universe? Why does the universe feel compelled to obey said immaterial laws? What is stopping these laws from changing with time? These are all very hard questions for the atheist to answer.

                  Now about your question. Jason has a book that answers it: The Ultimate Proof of Creation, i’d recommend reading it. Essentially, gods of other religions do not have the characteristics that would allow them to be the basis for unchanging laws or logic(they are contradictory, etc.)

                  Besides: Your god supposedly became flesh, did he not? Can “logic” do that?

                  That doesn’t follow logically. Logic doesn’t have a mind, and it is not all powerful like God so of course logic cannot do what God can do. The claim has never been that logic IS God, but that the unchanging laws of logic are contingent upon Gods unchanging nature.

                  There are a world of differences between the qualities of “logic” and your god. For one thing, God in the bible actually repented of many of the things he did. Not too consistent.

                  Jason already replied to those supposed inconsistencies, I suggest you go back up and read them.

                  As for atheism, what makes you think that people can’t imagine or think up of immaterial ideas just because we ourselves are material?
                  How can the material create the immaterial? Not only that, but how could you ever even know that what you’re thinking is true? For example, if our thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions in our brain, then how can you know they are giving you reliable information about the universe?

                  Are you going to claim that the concepts of mathematics is also evidence of your god?

                  Of course, actually Jason has written a very good article on mathematics if you care to read it.
                  http://www.icr.org/article/7098/

                  • Josef says:

                    Nice reply Micah.

                    Unfortunately, it appears to me that “the ignored” simply wants to dodge questions, e.g. I’ve asked him several times now what exactly makes a human’s life more valuable than a flesh-eating bacterium’s.

                    Also, for morality essentially boils don’t to, “If you can’t see why treating humans unkindly is immoral, then you’re a sociopath” i.e. it moral to be kind to humans because it is moral. He simply can’t help but beg the question.

                    And his last “argument” says it all:

                    the ignored: “Gah, this is stupid.

                    These types of remarks are usually indicative of someone who can’t answer back logically, but instead answers out of emotion.

                    • the_ignored says:

                      And you people have nothing but “argument from authority” for being “moral”. Whatever god commands is moral by definition.

                      Even if it’s killing people, as Micah admitted.

                      Some “morality”.

                      Whenever you people say that atheists have no logical basis for morality without god, you ignore every possible reason for being moral that I’ve given. You just show how depraved you people are: Without god telling you to, you’d have no reason to behave yourselves at all.

                  • the_ignored says:

                    Without ‘God’ telling us what to do, there would be no basis for behaving morally, as you keep confirming with your constant inability to provide a logical basis.
                    No. I gave reasons. You just reject them out of hand.

                    What would a “logical” basis for morality look like to you, Micah?

                    Construct one for me so I know how to construct my argument.

                    Most of the rest of your argument about logic, etc. I believe I dealt with in my last two replies to Lisle, if they get published.

                    • Josef says:

                      Micah: “Without ‘God’ telling us what to do, there would be no basis for behaving morally, as you keep confirming with your constant inability to provide a logical basis.

                      the ignored: “No. I gave reasons. You just reject them out of hand.

                      That’s because your “reasons” have all be subjective & arbitrary. Very often your “reasons” often take the form of, “It’s wrong to kill humans because it’s immoral”, i.e. begging the question fallacy. And if we press the issue to ask for a non-arbitrary reason for why it is “immoral” to kill people, you simply reply with things like, “If you don’t know why then you’re a sociopath” which is an ad hominem fallacy.

                      May I suggest that if you need to use fallacious reasonings to maintain your worldview, then your worldview is false?

                      the ignored: “What would a “logical” basis for morality look like to you, Micah?

                      Construct one for me so I know how to construct my argument.

                      We’ve already given this. God is the ultimate standard for good, because God by definition is the highest standard that’s possible. By definition, an ultimate standard is the standard by which all other standards are judged by. The morality that God commands stems from his nature. And apart from the biblical God, all other reasons for morality are arbitrary or subjective.

                      Christians value human life because of who we are valuable to, our Creator God. Apart from God, beliefs about morality boil down to personal opinions. The problem is if all you have is an opinion that it is wrong to kill, then why does your opinion out-weigh the opinion of someone else who might think it is ok to kill humans? Why would you think your opinion about killing people would be any more valid than your opinion about which flavor of ice cream is best? (Let me guess, if I don’t know why killing humans is wrong given your atheistic presuppositions, then I’m a sociopath, right?)

                  • Brian Forbes says:

                    Both sides of this debate seem to be missing something.

                    If you don’t feel right and wrong, you’re a sociopath.
                    If you don’t have an objective basis for your positions, you’re arbitrary.

                    To me, these both seem true. What’s missing is why it’s wrong to potentially be a sociopath or arbitrary. So I say get to the root cause. Why does the_ignored have no problem with being arbitrary? Since he doesn’t have a problem with it, does the claim that he is being arbitrary change his mind about anything? Likewise, what difference does it make that we become sociopaths? As long as you don’t care what people think and you do the right things, the motivation doesn’t matter much.

                    My point here is that you haven’t yet agreed on anything. You’re arguing past each other. In order to win a debate, you have to find common ground (or shared axioms) and work the logic from there.
                    youtube.com / watch?v=9-k5J4RxQdE

                    Glad to be of help.

                    • Josef says:

                      Brian: “What’s missing is why it’s wrong to potentially be a sociopath or arbitrary. So I say get to the root cause.

                      Getting to the “root cause” is exactly what I’ve been trying to do. If atheism is true, then why exactly is it wrong to be a sociopath? Where does this concept stem from? Is it just opinion? If it is just opinion, then what’s to say that someone of a dissenting opinion is wrong? I’m asking him very specific questions (such as my asking him what exactly gives human beings more value than bacteria) and he simply refuses to answer them.

                      And the reason we avoid being arbitrary is in order to be rational. Thus far, “the ignored” has not demonstrated that he has a rational worldview because he is arbitrary in his reasoning. Like I said, his reason for why it is immoral to kill humans takes the form of, “The reason it is immoral to kill people is because it’s wrong”. He can’t help but beg the question.

                      Brian: “Why does the_ignored have no problem with being arbitrary? Since he doesn’t have a problem with it, does the claim that he is being arbitrary change his mind about anything?”

                      It’s like I said, I can’t change “the ignored’s” mind. Only God can grant a sinner repentance, but what I have the priviledge of doing is showing the unrepenetant sinner that they do not have a logical basis for rejecting God.

                      If you feel you can be more convincing, then feel free to engage with him.

  14. Jim says:

    “…caring for future generations of the human race, empathy for others (imagining what you would feel if you were the victim), treating others well so that you are treated well, keeping society together, caring for friends and family, etc.”

    Yet none of these have been demonstrated to be lacking in Dr. Lisle or other contributors to this post.

    “At least abortionists draw the line at the baby being born…you people don’t, not when “god” tells you to kill them. And we are the ones who are depraved? Really?”

    Inside versus outside, huh? That’s all it takes? Yes, depraved.

    Who are “you people”? Unjustified and irrational over-generalization…

    “What one wants to be true has no bearing on what is true.”

    I agree totally. I hardly believe you have cornered the market on what is true, though…

    I will pray that the Lord will work to stir your spirit toward Him and that you may see the truth that is in Jesus Christ.

  15. the_ignored says:

    Jim quoting me:
    “…caring for future generations of the human race, empathy for others (imagining what you would feel if you were the victim), treating others well so that you are treated well, keeping society together, caring for friends and family, etc.”

    Yet none of these have been demonstrated to be lacking in Dr. Lisle or other contributors to this post.
    Yes, it has. Just look at where Micah has just asked what if “moral” about that. It’s pretty obvious that those motives are not good enough for them. If it was, Micah wouldn’t have asked that question. Just look at Micah’s latest reply. He shows this attitude over and over again.
    http://www.jasonlisle.com/2012/11/09/deep-time-the-god-of-our-age/comment-page-3/#comment-5513

    Jim quoting me:
    “At least abortionists draw the line at the baby being born…you people don’t, not when “god” tells you to kill them. And we are the ones who are depraved? Really?”

    Inside versus outside, huh? That’s all it takes? Yes, depraved.
    “God told me to kill babies” vs. human deciding to do it. That’s all it takes, huh?

    You seem to miss the at least statement in my comment above. Christians cross a line that even abortionists don’t. Read where your friend Micah admitted that it would be wrong to not kill a baby if god ordered it to be done.

    Yes, depraved indeed.

    Who are “you people”? Unjustified and irrational over-generalization…
    “You people” are the ones I”m talking to here and others, who admit that they need “god” to tell them what’s moral or not. How is this unjustified? How is this an irrational over-generalization”? I’m pointing out what you people are yourselves saying.

    If you want “unjustified and irrational over-generalizations” then may I remind you of all the times that xians have said of atheists that we’re “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” or we believe in evolution because we”don’t want to be accountable to god”?

    Brian Forbes
    You complain that I over-generalize as well. My comments about that in this reply answer that complain at well.

    I notice that no one has dealt with the problem that colliding galaxies present for young earth creationism earlier:
    http://www.jasonlisle.com/2012/11/09/deep-time-the-god-of-our-age/comment-page-3/#comment-5474

    • Josef says:

      The Ignored: “Yes, it has. Just look at where Micah has just asked what if “moral” about that. It’s pretty obvious that those motives are not good enough for them.

      Why exactly should those motives be “good enough”? Who decides just what is “good” and just how much is “good enough”? Once again, you’re simply dodging the real issue.

      The Ignored: “If it was, Micah wouldn’t have asked that question. Just look at Micah’s latest reply. He shows this attitude over and over again.

      Or perhaps Micah is asking you to give justification for your beliefs. It isn’t merely enough to say, “I think this should be good enough”. In order to be rational we must provide justification for our beliefs. A belief that is unjustified is irrational.

      The Ignored: “You seem to miss the at least statement in my comment above. Christians cross a line that even abortionists don’t. Read where your friend Micah admitted that it would be wrong to not kill a baby if god ordered it to be done.

      It wouldn’t be wrong if God ordered it. But why does this bother you? What is so different between a human being versus an ant? If atheism is true, then aren’t we all just animals or bags of chemicals just reacting? What gives a human being more value than a dog? Or a rock?

      The Ignored: “ “You people” are the ones I”m talking to here and others, who admit that they need “god” to tell them what’s moral or not. How is this unjustified? How is this an irrational over-generalization”? I’m pointing out what you people are yourselves saying.

      You still haven’t provided a rational, objective basis for any of your morals. Essentially you’re just saying, “That should be good enough!” But why should that be good enough? Who decides what is “good” and how much good is “good enough”? You still cannot even answer these fundamental questions!

      The ignored: “If you want “unjustified and irrational over-generalizations” then may I remind you of all the times that xians have said of atheists that we’re “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” or we believe in evolution because we”don’t want to be accountable to god”?

      Yep, and you show this every single time you post. You keep adhering to some “moral standard” that you expect all humans to abide by. But yet, you can’t even give a rational and objective basis for this moral standard. And apart from the biblical God, you never will.

      In your worldview of atheism there isn’t such a thing as moral or immoral. The very fact that you know that there are certain actions or inactions that are moral or immoral does not comport with atheism. You are acting very inconsistently with your professed worldview. That’s because you do know that God does exist, and you are relying on him all the time, you just don’t want to give him credit for it.

      The Ignored: “I notice that no one has dealt with the problem that colliding galaxies present for young earth creationism earlier…

      Not everyone is knowledgeable in astronomy or astrophysics. I’m sure Dr. Lisle will answer it if he sees it (with so many posts, it’s unlikely he’ll see every single post, but if it is brought to his attention, I’m sure he will answer it).

      • Steve says:

        “galaxies colliding”

        He answered it. 😉

        • Josef says:

          Heh, I saw that after I posted my reply 😉

          Ironic how “the ignored” thinks that scientific evidence can disprove the Bible, when it is only the biblical worldview that makes science and the ability to gain knowledge possible.

          • the_ignored says:

            I like how you try to dodge obvious problems by pretending that your unproven assertion shoots it down.

            The Greeks, Arabs, ancient Chinese, etc all contributed to science without the biblical worldview.

            Unless you’d care to prove somehow that the greeks were closet christians?

            • Micah says:

              Hi,

              The thing is, Josef never said that one must profess the Biblical worldview to be true in order to contribute to science.

              He said that the Biblical worldview is the only worldview that can make science and knowledge possible. In other words, someone doesn’t have to profess the Bible to be true in order to do science, but the Bible must be true in order for them to be able to do science.

              Micah

        • the_ignored says:

          Uh, right….how do you know that god didn’t make them like that?

          That’s an answer??

      • the_ignored says:

        I’m sorry Josef, but you say that killing babies would not be wrong if god ordered it?

        Wny? Care to justify it? Can you rationally back that up?

        You obviously don’t care about future generations of humanity, otherwise the answers I gave which included preserving future generations of humanity would be good enough.

        Humans place value on our own lives. If you don’t, that’s your problem and I can’t help you.

        At least you people could be honest enough to just say that atheists and non-xians in general have all sorts of different reasons for acting moral, instead of lying that we have no basis for acting moral.

        Or would that be too much to ask?

        It’s bad enough that you’re sociopathic, but you’re preachy about it as well.

        • Josef says:

          The ignored: “I’m sorry Josef, but you say that killing babies would not be wrong if god ordered it? Wny? Care to justify it? Can you rationally back that up?

          I’ve already answered this several times. But I suppose I will again: by definition God is the ultimate standard for good. And since by definition ultimate standards are the standards by which all other standards are judged by (this includes our opinions or understandings), any position against God would necessarily be immoral.

          Now, can you tell me why killing babies is wrong given your atheistic presuppositions without being subjective or arbitrary? I.e. give me a reason that doesn’t boil down to personal opinion.

          The ignored: “You obviously don’t care about future generations of humanity, otherwise the answers I gave which included preserving future generations of humanity would be good enough.

          This is a straw-man fallacy. Once again, I need to point out that if you need to resort to using fallacious arguments to maintain your worldview, then your worldview is false.

          I never said that I don’t care about future generations; however, unlike you, I have a logical basis for why I care about future generations of humanity. I care about other people and the continuance of the human race because humans are made in the image of God and we are valuable to God.

          However, in your atheistic worldview, why are humans any more valuable than bacteria? Will you actually answer this?

          The ignored: “Humans place value on our own lives. If you don’t, that’s your problem and I can’t help you.

          But why do humans place value on their own lives? What makes you think you are any more valuable than an inanimate object?

          In fact, many humans don’t think other humans are more valuable than inanimate objects. People kill each other all the time for food, money, gold, or sometimes even just for fun. Given your atheistic views, can you really say that they are objectively wrong?

          The ignored: “At least you people could be honest enough to just say that atheists and non-xians in general have all sorts of different reasons for acting moral, instead of lying that we have no basis for acting moral.

          Ok, back up, pull your head out of the sand: I’ve said repeatedly that I’m not claiming that you don’t have a basis for your morality. My claim is that you don’t have a rational basis for your morality. I don’t know how to make that any more clear.

          The ignored: “It’s bad enough that you’re sociopathic, but you’re preachy about it as well.

          Ah, the ad hominem fallacy; usually this fallacy is usually committed when the arguer can’t answer back logically. And again, I will need to point out, if you need to resort to using fallacies of reason to support your worldview, then your worldview is false.

          And, I also need to point out that the irony here is that given your atheistic worldview there isn’t anything wrong with being a “sociopath”. I do agree that being a sociopath is wrong and while you might also agree with this, the difference is that I have a rational basis for my belief. But you don’t because you reject the only rational standard for morality, the biblical God.

          • the_ignored says:

            And you continue on with asking WHY do people place values on our own lives.

            Why do you think your god allegedly does?

            Why does it matter if god places value or if humans themselves places value on our lives?

            Why is one acceptable and “rational” yet one is not?

            Ah, the ad hominem fallacy; usually this fallacy is usually committed when the arguer can’t answer back logically. And again, I will need to point out, if you need to resort to using fallacies of reason to support your worldview, then your worldview is false.
            I’ve got news for you: Every time you claim that “atheists don’t have a logical basis for morality” that’s the fallacy you commit.

            I’m just pointing out the results of your kind of thinking. There’s an AIG billboard I mention in one of my replies that shows this.

            How is “god” the “rational” basis for morality? He’s not even consistent. Sometimes he orders people to kill, including babies yet you people claim that xian morality is what makes you “pro-life”??

            • Jim says:

              And you continue on with asking WHY do people place values on our own lives.

              That has not been the question, as Christians in general know that their lives have value because God values them. The question continually asked of you is WHY do atheists/evolutionists believe their lives have more/special value that any other random organism? The question is continually asked because you continually don’t answer.

              Why do you think your god allegedly does?

              Why do you say allegedly? The Christian claim has historical support. God has explicitly told us so and demonstrated it through Christ. This has been made abundantly clear throughout this blog.

              Why does it matter if god places value or if humans themselves places value on our lives?

              That is a great question. If it does not matter, why do you even bother to argue about it? I believe it does matter because the question of eternity is inescapable. Whose appraisal would you presume to matter more, that of the creator or of the creature? If there is no creator, then you have only your own self worth. If there is a creator, then it really does matter. Ultimately, you’ll have to answer the question for yourself.

              Why is one acceptable and “rational” yet one is not?

              The acceptability is a matter of choice. The rationality is a matter of logic. The Christian worldview has a logical basis for its beliefs. So far, in all of the comments I’ve read in this blog, not one person has presented a logical answer to why they believe it is right to be moral from an evolutionary or atheistic perspective.

              I’ve got news for you: Every time you claim that “atheists don’t have a logical basis for morality” that’s the fallacy you commit.

              Not true, we can actually hand you a copy of our basis for morality. You cannot. You continue to be irrational.

              How is “god” the “rational” basis for morality? He’s not even consistent. Sometimes he orders people to kill, including babies yet you people claim that xian morality is what makes you “pro-life”??

              The fact that you continue to focus on killing babies reveals you only want to argue from the emotional and irrational perspective. I believe God values babies equally with adults. Paul tells us in Romans that “…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. I fail to see why this bothers someone with an evolutionist/atheistic perspective. It’s ok to murder babies in the womb for convenience (in essence waging war against the defenseless), yet it’s not ok for a group of God’s chosen people to wage war against another rebellious, disobedient peoples? You judge God, yet you are guilty of your own accusation.

              What makes one pro-life is one’s belief that abortion is immoral. That belief is based on the inspired word of God.

              God values us because we just reflect his value of himself?
              This is worse than I thought.

              No. You project your own self centeredness onto God. The Bible tells us that he is perfectly holy; he cannot have an inflated valuation of Himself. He created us in his image, and by that fact, we have value. This is not dependent on what we think of ourselves or what God thinks of Himself, it is what God thinks of us.

              • Josef says:

                The fact that you continue to focus on killing babies reveals you only want to argue from the emotional and irrational perspective.

                Well said, Jim! This is actually the fallacy of appeal to emotion, i.e. when the arguer attempts to manipulate the emotions of opponent to win the argument rather than through logic.

                And it’s like I’ve pointed out several times, if “the ignored” must resort to using logical fallacies to maintain his worldview, then his worldview is in serious trouble.

                And I find it noteworthy to point out that he has not answered my question of what makes humans (including babies) any more valuable than bacteria given his atheistic presuppositions.

          • the_ignored says:

            Wait…”we are in the image of god”? That’s why we have value in your eyes?

            God values us because we just reflect his value of himself?

            This is worse than I thought.

            • Josef says:

              the ignored: “And you continue on with asking WHY do people place values on our own lives.

              I keep asking “why” because thus far you have not given me an answer that does not beg the question. All of our beliefs need to be justified if we are to be rational.

              Unfortunately your answers for why you place value on human lives is, “I care about humans for the propagation of the human race” i.e. “I care about humans because I care about humans”. And you also keep saying that this should be good enough of an answer. Why should it be “good enough? And given your atheistic presuppositions, who decides what is “good” and how much “good” is considered to be “good enough”? And you still haven’t answered why in your atheist worldview, humans are any more valuable than bacteria or even inanimate objects.

              the ignored: “Why do you think your god allegedly does?

              Because we bear his image.

              the ignored: “Why does it matter if god places value or if humans themselves places value on our lives?

              Why is one acceptable and “rational” yet one is not?

              As I’ve already explained, apart from the biblical God, morality is simply subjective & arbitrary, i.e. moral relativism.

              Humans placing value on themselves simply boils down to opinion and if another person of a different opinion decides it’s fine to murder, how will you objectively say that he is wrong?

              the ignored: “I’ve got news for you: Every time you claim that “atheists don’t have a logical basis for morality” that’s the fallacy [ad hominem] you commit.

              Even if this were true, what you’ve just done is committed yet another type of ad hominem fallacy, tu quoque. I’m really interested in hearing why you think that this is an ad hominem.

              the ignored: “I’m just pointing out the results of your kind of thinking. There’s an AIG billboard I mention in one of my replies that shows this.

              That’s nice, but I’m pointing out the irrationality of your worldview. You still haven’t even answered the most fundamental questions. I’ll ask you yet again (although I already know you’ll dodge it again): what gives humans more value than bacteria given your atheistic presuppositions?

              the ignored: “How is “god” the “rational” basis for morality? He’s not even consistent. Sometimes he orders people to kill, including babies yet you people claim that xian morality is what makes you “pro-life”??

              Obviously certain situations call for certain actions. God doesn’t command anything that is inconsistent with his character. If he commands to kill babies, then he has a very good and specific reason for it. It’s not just a random command just because he woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

              the ignored: “Wait…”we are in the image of god”? That’s why we have value in your eyes?

              God values us because we just reflect his value of himself?

              This is worse than I thought

              Well no offense, but I don’t really care what you think is “worse”. “Worse” is a concept that doesn’t comport with the atheist’s worldview. Every time you say things like “good” or “bad” or “immoral” or “moral”, etc you’re referring to concepts that your worldview cannot give a rational account for.

              Also what do you value more, a picture of a loved one or a picture of a rock? Most likely you’d value the picture of a loved one more; why? Because it bears the image of someone you care about. And since we bear the image of God, we have value to God. And because we have value to God, we should value each others because of our importance to God.

          • Lithp says:

            “Ok, back up, pull your head out of the sand: I’ve said repeatedly that I’m not claiming that you don’t have a basis for your morality. My claim is that you don’t have a rational basis for your morality. I don’t know how to make that any more clear.”

            I could argue this, but why does it even matter? If you result in the same morality, who cares where it comes from?

            • Steve says:

              “who cares where it comes from?”

              I believe the point being made is the fact that we DO have the same morality BECAUSE it only comes from one place. God. In other words, you can say “I have morality and I don’t believe in God” but it is the same as saying “I can breathe just fine and I don’t believe in air”

              • Lithp says:

                Oh, well, that’s just nonsense. But I don’t especially care if you believe that, so long as you aren’t out raping & pillaging.

                • Josef says:

                  Can you explain why “raping & pillaging” is objective wrong from your worldview?

                  If it’s nonsense that there is one universal standard for morality, then why couldn’t someone else have the standard that “raping & pillaging” is actually a good thing?

                  In fact, from an evolutionary perspective where we are ultimately looking out for our own benefit, these might actually increase our chances for survival. And surely raping might be an effective way to pass our genes down in a short period of time.

                  So where does this concept come from that it is wrong to rape, especially if you believe there isn’t a universal standard for morality?

                  • Jim says:

                    Josef,

                    You bring up another good point here. Morality goes beyond “do not kill”. The question becomes whether it is moral/ethical from an athistic/evolutionary worldview to obey any rules at all. The counter argument is that they obey laws for safety reasons; however, there are many laws written to protect property and has nothing to do with safety. From a evolutionary perspective, I would think it ok to steal…or lie…or dishonor our parents. It seems to me that the evolutionist would only obey non-safety laws out of selfish fear.

                • Lithp says:

                  The simple fact is, you’re adhering to a double-standard. You want me to say, “The law,” or “Empathy,” just so you can fire back with, “Oh, but different countries have different laws” or, “Not everyone observes empathy.”

                  Well, Bucko, the simple fact is, if you want a Moral Rule That Can Never Ever Ever EVER Be Violated Under Any Circumstances, that does not exist.

                  Not “exists for Christians but not for atheists.” People can, & do, violate Christian morality all of the time. You can say that they will be punished, but this is a dodge. It does not change the fact that there is 1 standard (“True Christianity”) & several competing standards (other forms of Christianity, Judaism, paganism, etc.) Also, this standard is not applied to animals, because they have no souls, or something like that. You do not have an absolute standard of morality.

                  Now, if you want to stop patting yourselves on the back & actually LEARN something, a rule is “objective” essentially if the logic of it exists independent of the observer’s feelings. “Empathy” is an objective standard because, while not everyone follows it, it’s still a standard that can be rationally acknowledged by any person who does not let their biases sway them. Kant called this “being means unto themselves.”

                  You could attempt to make an argument that raping & pillaging are good, but it would likely be idiotic, & amount to little more than “It’s good for everyone because -I- get what -I- want.” Moreover, it’s obviously going to fail the empathy test, because while you might have gotten something out of it, you’ve increased the overall suffering in the world.

                  Now, this “evolutionary perspective” is precisely no point at all. I know this is hard for you to grasp, but evolution is science. That’s why it’s significantly more complicated than just “this thing benefits ME RIGHT NOW, so I’m gonna do it & disregard the consequences.” There are generally 3 types of people who try to turn evolution into that–what we call “social darwinism”–& not 1 of them has a bloody clue what they’re talking about.

                  1. 12-year-old atheists on YouTube. Simply put, they’ve just converted, or are trying to put a name to pre-existing beliefs. This leads to a lot of misapplied research.

                  2. Sleazy businessmen who just want to excuse what they were ALREADY doing before they’d even heard of evolution. These people probably can’t tell you very much at all about biological evolution, except that there’s something called “survival of the fittest.”

                  And last but certainly not least…

                  3. Religious apologists, such as yourselves, who are looking for a straw man to beat down, & will throw it into conversations where your opponent has never mentioned it. Of course, this will come with inevitable misquotes, such as “if it doesn’t kill you, you’ll do it, according to evolution.” This is, of course, disregarding that our lineage has endowed us with complicated social processes, which protect this thing which we call “society,” which has allowed us to dominate environments that are normally quite hostile to us. Also, evolution is designed to explain & predict the PRE-EXISTING behaviors of lifeforms, most of whom inherently have NO BELIEF in evolution itself. It’s not a treatise on morality. Do you look at crime statistics, forensics, criminal psychology, criminal profiling, &/or defense lawyers & claim that they exist to justify crime? Probably not, mere understanding is not endorsement.

                  • Steve says:

                    I unfortunately don’t have time to reply to everything you posted. For the moment I want to ask you about one statement you made.
                    “but evolution is science.”

                    Science being knowledge by observation… and I’ll mention the scientific method which is observing and testing theories, can you provide one observable example of Evolution? I’m specifically referring to the type of evolution by dissent.

                  • Brian Forbes says:

                    You could attempt to make an argument that raping & pillaging are good, but it would likely be idiotic, & amount to little more than “It’s good for everyone because -I- get what -I- want.” Moreover, it’s obviously going to fail the empathy test, because while you might have gotten something out of it, you’ve increased the overall suffering in the world.

                    You gave a couple reasons for your morality in this response, but they still seem to boil down to, “Because I said so, and so does my mentor.” It seems to me that you’re saying morals are never objective. They can only ever be convincing, because we’re inclined to believe it. Did I get that right?

                  • Josef says:

                    Answered below for space.

          • Steve says:

            “Will you actually answer this?”

            Looks like the simple answer is No.

        • Brian Forbes says:

          At least you people could be honest enough to just say that atheists and non-xians in general have all sorts of different reasons for acting moral, instead of lying that we have no basis for acting moral.

          I’ve admitted this several times. Give credit where credit is due. But maybe your goal is to convince Josef. I understand. Every life is valuable.

          • Robert says:

            It looks like they said that both groups had reasons for morals. Actually, it appears that they said both groups have the same reason for morals – the Biblical God.
            Even compared it to air through an analogy, where it can be used by the person weather you believe in air or not.

          • Josef says:

            There’s nothing to convince me of as “the ignored’s” statement here is actually a straw-man fallacy. I’ve never said he didn’t have merely a basis for his morality. My claim is that he doesn’t have a logical basis for his morality.

            I also understand that every life is valuable, because everyone is made in the image of God and we have value to God. The issue isn’t whether every life is valuable, but why is every life valuable? In the Christian worldview, it makes sense that this is the case. In the atheist’s worldview why are humans more valuable than bacteria? And like I said, many people don’t believe humans are more valuable than a lot of things, as people kill all the time for food, wealth, and even for fun in some cases. Can the atheist’s truly object against these actions given their atheistic presuppositions?

    • Jim says:

      Jim said: Yet none of these have been demonstrated to be lacking in Dr. Lisle or other contributors to this post.
      the ignored said: Yes, it has. Just look at where Micah has just asked what if “moral” about that. It’s pretty obvious that those motives are not good enough for them. If it was, Micah wouldn’t have asked that question. Just look at Micah’s latest reply. He shows this attitude over and over again.
      http://www.jasonlisle.com/2012/11/09/deep-time-the-god-of-our-age/comment-page-3/#comment-5513

      No, you are wrong. You have mischaracterized Micah’s comments. His comments contrast Christian worldview with “evolutionary, atheistic” worldview. He is asking you to provide a substantive, rational basis for the morals you profess. ie someone told you, or your read of them somewhere, you adopted them from watching “Little House on the Prairie”. His comments certainly do not indicate that he has failed to do any of the items you listed.

      Lacking in your comments are facts. For someone to judge someone else as to whether or not they are living a meaningful life by your examples, you must demonstrate specific occurrences. Otherwise, you are merely stating your unsubstantiated opinion…which is not fact or truth…

      A basis for something should be specific, measurable, and verifiable. You listed some good big picture examples of what might be indicative of a meaningful life, but left out the specifics. For example, I could argue that Dr. Lisle shows caring for the future generations through his research and educating Children in science. I presume he shows empathy for others by praying for or with them. I would imagine he contributes to charity, ergo evidence of a meaningful life.

      Conversely, I would argue that comments like yours, J’s, and Tony’s (with his many personas, 羅漢獅子, taka no mi) are more divisive and antagonistic than Dr. Lisle’s, Josef, or Micah’s. How do such accusatory (over-generalized referral and grouping of all Christians past, present, future of killing babies), inflammatory use of “xian” as a derogatory term, and unsubstantiated mischaracterizations foster keeping society together?

      the ignored said: “The bible in many cases, tells people who to murder! Only it’s OK when god tells you to do it. Remember verses like “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”? As well as the other various OT stuff?”

      References and context? Wicked rebellion and disobedience toward God are behaviors worthy of death. If we are indeed his creation, he is right to punish those that rebel against him. However, he has demonstrated his love for us in this, while we were still sinners Christ DIED for us. Ro 5:8.

      Can you give me a logically sound explanation for why killing at all is wrong in your worldview?
      the ignored said: “If we kill each other all off, then there will be no more human race? That good enough? Silly me…I know it won’t be. Again, I give a basis, and you keep pretending that I’ve given none.”

      To be accurate and precise, you have not. No pretense is necessary. A statement that killing each other off is bad is not a basis. It is an application of the moral, not the basis of the morality itself.

      Hypothetically, if you sincerely BELIEVED that an all powerful being instructed you to do something as heinous as take the life of a child, and if you are honest with yourself, wouldn’t you consider doing it? Why are you so quick to judge those in Biblical history when much worse behaviors are prevalent today? I don’t believe the scale of baby killing then comes close to the daily wholesale slaughter of our children in this country, for convenience in most cases. So yes, I would contend that a credible revelation (since neither you nor I was there, hard to say how credible it was) from the all-powerful God of the universe has more weight than the sick rationalizations of abortion supporters…

      the ignored said: “You seem to miss the at least statement in my comment above. Christians cross a line that even abortionists don’t. “

      Hardly. To be specific, granted this is but one example, Kermit Grosnell, a licensed ABORTIONIST was convicted of crossing the very lines of which you speak. So please don’t tout the virtues of abortionists. We even have abortionists today and liberal politicians’ who voted not render life saving assistance to babies that survive abortion attempts. To me that is monstrous, and fails every example of what you claim describes a meaningful life… Killing is not just perpetrated by Christians.

      Your arguments are so very contradictory to “evolutionary theory” where survival of the fittest means that it’s ok to kill your own kind to survive, which makes me wonder if you really understand the theory and truly believe in it. We’ve certainly seen the depravity of many cultures killing off their fellow humans en mass …how does an evolutionary perspective address this? I don’t endorse this website, but a quick google search shows that many modern examples of genocide were not perpetrated by Christians. worst genocides of the 20th and 21st Centuries

      What you fail to bring into the conversation is that the Biblical history describes peoples at WAR. In most, if not all wars, not just the ones of the Bible, women and children were killed. Many were in fact and as the recent anniversary of Hiroshima remind us of the horrible loss of men, women, and children on a massive scale, delivered at the hands of our country.

      You profess high morality but provide nothing specific about its basis. The only options available to you are that you were taught or you taught yourself. The question then becomes what was taught and why do you believe it? You might say “my parents taught me that it’s not nice to hit, or speak ill of someone”. But the question will be, “where did the original morality come from?” As Christians, we can rightly point to the authoritative, historically proven, divine revelation of God’s word in the Holy Scriptures.

      By your over-generalization, I perceive you accusing the contributors to this blog and all Christians of being baby killers, which is irrational. I certainly believe that no one you’ve directed your hate speech toward is guilty of killing of any sort. I also believe most Christians would universally condemn killing without just cause, but would agree that heinous acts against humanity deserve capital punishment.

      the ignored said: See what I say right below. By the way, how is working to prevent humanity’s extinction “irrational”?

      How is promoting homosexuality working to prevent humanity’s extinction? From an evolutionary perspective, it’s a self-defeating behavior, therefore irrational. Someone is not wrong for condemning it according to God’s word. They would be wrong in persecuting someone for that behavior.
      What efforts do you speak of that are working to prevent humanity’s extinction?

      the ignored said: “Scriptural “morals” are what lead religious people to defend acts of genocide, including pregnant woman and babies, whole loudly proclaiming themselves to be “pro-life”.”

      I don’t believe the ancient peoples proclaimed themselves to be pro-life. That is a rather modern label. I believe the genocide you are referring to were people at war…

      the ignored said: “Scriptural “morals” are what lead to men saying that women should not be in positions of authority over men as that verse in Timothy said.”

      This statement reveals your misunderstanding and misapplication of Timothy’s teaching. However, from an evolutionist’s perspective, what’s wrong with men keeping positions of authority to themselves? What is natural about abdicating authority or power? Such a perspective seems self defeating and counter to the application of survival of the fittest.

      the ignored said: “Scriptural “morals” are what helped bolster the slave-owning states in the South because there are no verses in the bible forbidding slavery while many verse endorse it. This, by the way, is one of the reasons why skeptics fight. We don’t need this as a society.”

      References? The Bible condemns being a slave to anything, which is idolatry, save being a slave to Christ. The fact that there were slaves reveals the depravity of man. I don’t believe we have slavery in our society today, at least the last time I checked…

      the ignored: “I notice that no one has dealt with the problem that colliding galaxies present for young earth creationism earlier…”

      To dovetail Josef’s comments, few people are well versed in astronomy or astrophysics, so you’ll have to wait for it. I suspect there will always be problems with both old earth and young earth “theories”. I doubt that any answer will convince you of the authority of scripture or the existence of God. After all, Jeremiah tells us in Jer 17:9 that “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” I will certainly pray that God pours out his Holy Spirit upon you to change yours.

      • Micah says:

        Excellent reply Jim

      • Lithp says:

        “Hypothetically, if you sincerely BELIEVED that an all powerful being instructed you to do something as heinous as take the life of a child, and if you are honest with yourself, wouldn’t you consider doing it?”

        No. I don’t know why you would even think that. If this being is so bloody powerful, it can do its own dirty work.

        “Your arguments are so very contradictory to “evolutionary theory” where survival of the fittest means that it’s ok to kill your own kind to survive, which makes me wonder if you really understand the theory and truly believe in it.”

        That’s not what it means. Essentially, “survival of the fittest” means, “If a lifeform is doing something that will cause it to die in the current environment, it will die, if it is doing something that will cause it to live, it will live.” This may result in killing one’s own kind, as with lions, gorillas, et cetera, but it also results, probably more frequently, in not doing that. Trying to base your “morals” off of natural selection doesn’t make any more sense than trying to base them off of anatomy.

        Also, homosexuality is not a self-defeating behavior evolutionarillay speaking. For starters, if it was, it wouldn’t be around anymore. But it also provides caregivers for orphaned children, & primates (such as humans) often use various forms of intercourse to reinforce the social order.

        “To dovetail Josef’s comments, few people are well versed in astronomy or astrophysics, so you’ll have to wait for it. I suspect there will always be problems with both old earth and young earth “theories”. I doubt that any answer will convince you of the authority of scripture or the existence of God. After all, Jeremiah tells us in Jer 17:9 that “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” I will certainly pray that God pours out his Holy Spirit upon you to change yours.

        Hahaha oh wow. “I don’t know what I’m talking about, so YOU’RE ignorant!”

  16. Josef says:

    the ignored: “And you people have nothing but “argument from authority” for being “moral”. Whatever god commands is moral by definition.

    Even if it’s killing people, as Micah admitted.

    Some “morality”.

    God by definition is the standard for good; without him, all views of morality become subjective and arbitrary, and thus far, you haven’t provided a refutation for this. It’s like I said, your morality boils down to your personal opinion. And we know what they say about opinions…

    the ignored: “Whenever you people say that atheists have no logical basis for morality without god, you ignore every possible reason for being moral that I’ve given. You just show how depraved you people are: Without god telling you to, you’d have no reason to behave yourselves at all.

    Every possible reason given apart from God thus far has been subjective & arbitrary. You have not even been able to answer fundamental questions.

    I’ll ask again: what exactly makes a human being more valuable than a flesh-eating bacterium? In my worldview, the Christian worldview, I have a logical basis to believe humans are more valuable than any other organism. That’s because humans especially are created in the image of God; our value exists because of who we are valuable to (God).

    However in the atheistic worldview, humans are just re-arranged pond scum. And thus far, you have not given any logical basis for why humans should be valued and your argument is largely starting to turn into an ad hominem fallacy.

    • the_ignored says:

      God by definition is the standard for good…
      How so? Why is this “standard” so inconsistent?
      (ie.
      –killing babies is wrong , unless god decided that they have to be killed
      –lying is wrong, unless god tells you to as with the “prophet” Samuel.

      …; without him, all views of morality become subjective and arbitrary, and thus far, you haven’t provided a refutation for this.
      News flash: If it’s wrong to kill babies one day because god says it is, and the other time it’s wrong to NOT kill babies because god says it is, it’s your “morality” that is subjective.

      I’ll ask again: what exactly makes a human being more valuable than a flesh-eating bacterium? In my worldview, the Christian worldview, I have a logical basis to believe humans are more valuable than any other organism. That’s because humans especially are created in the image of God; our value exists because of who we are valuable to (God).
      Unless of course, “god” tells you otherwise. All you’ve done is show that if you ever either
      1) get a message from god telling you to kill people, as with Susan Smith, then you will believe that it’d be immoral to not kill people

      2) become a non-believer then any reason that non-believers have for not killing people will not have any traction with you.

      Again, all you do is show how depraved your “moral system” is.

      People’s “value” to god does not do a bit of good since he is always giving orders to kill people, including babies.

      How much does he value “his image” anyway if he’s willing to commit infanticide?

      And you say that it’s the atheist view that’s “subjective”?

      Children have value to their parents, yet when I had pointed out that one of the reasons for valuing human life was for future generations, you (or the other commentator, I forget which) rejected that.

      So: Humans valuing their children means nothing. God valuing us as his “creations” or “children” gives real value.

      And you say that it’s the atheist view that’s “subjective”?

      It’s like I said, your morality boils down to your personal opinion. And we know what they say about opinions…
      And if it’s just “opinion” that it’s a good thing for humans to keep the human race from going extinct, then I can’t really say much to that.

      • Jim says:

        the_ignored said: News flash: If it’s wrong to kill babies one day because god says it is, and the other time it’s wrong to NOT kill babies because god says it is, it’s your “morality” that is subjective.

        Hi the_ignored, I was really hoping you were going to bring something new and challenging to the debate; shockingly, you only continue to repeat yourself – as if that makes your argument valid. It really doesn’t. You continue to appeal to emotion, without providing any justification for your argument, other than opinion. What is the basis of your opinion?

        Do you have a specific example of God directing the killing of a baby? I have hundreds of examples a day of non-believers killing babies? Is that wrong in your opinion?

        the_ignored said: And you say that it’s the atheist view that’s “subjective”?

        To more accurate, the argument has been made that the atheistic worldview of morality is arbitrary and therefore irrational. So far, you have not provided evidence to the contrary.

        the_ignored said: Children have value to their parents, yet when I had pointed out that one of the reasons for valuing human life was for future generations, you (or the other commentator, I forget which) rejected that.

        Straw man – No one has discounted that parents value their children and thereby promote future generations. But, that isn’t a basis for morality. I can give you many examples of parents not valuing their children, thereby not promoting the future generation…and already have.

        the_ignored said: So: Humans valuing their children means nothing. God valuing us as his “creations” or “children” gives real value.
        And you say that it’s the atheist view that’s “subjective”?

        Straw man, again. No one has stated that “valuing their children means nothing.” 1 John 4:19 We love because He (emphasis mine as John refers to God) first loved us. That is a logical basis for selfless love (morality) in the Christian worldview, which also answers your request of Micah to construct a logical basis of morality, so that you can construct yours. Well, your turn – What is the logical basis for morality in an atheistic worldview?

      • Josef says:

        The ignored:

        Once again, I have noticed that you have dodged specific questions I have been asking you. I don’t know how many times now I have asked you to tell me what makes humans more valuable than bacteria given your atheistic presuppositions. Also, despite that your reasons for your morality have been demonstrated to be either arbitrary or subjective, you keep giving the same reasons as if you think repeating fallacious arguments will eventually make them sound.

        Do you not agree that we should have a logical basis for all of our beliefs? Do you not agree that in order to have a rational discussion we should do our best to avoid using fallacious arguments?

        I feel compelled to ask these questions because throughout your posts you don’t seem to think it is necessary to give a logical basis for your beliefs. Instead you’re merely taking them for granted. You also seem very inclined to use the fallacy of appealing to emotions (such as your constant examples with baby killing) or simply begging the question fallacy for why we should value human life.

        I hope you’ll agree that in order for us to have a rational and fruitful discussion, there must be an agreement to do our best to avoid fallacious arguments; and in a discussion that involves questions, the answers must go both ways. As far as I can tell, I’m answering the questions you bring up while you simply ignore most of mine. And unfortunately the answers that you do give usually involve a fallacious argument. And when I reject the fallacious argument, you think I’m just ignoring your answer. Do you really expect people to accept a false argument?

        I said: “God by definition is the standard for good…

        the ignored: “How so? Why is this “standard” so inconsistent?
        (ie.
        –killing babies is wrong , unless god decided that they have to be killed
        –lying is wrong, unless god tells you to as with the “prophet” Samuel.

        You have not demonstrated any type of inconsistency. As I’ve already pointed out, if God commands something, then there is a very good and just reason for it. It’s not just an arbitrary command because he woke up on the wrong side of the bed. So unless you can demonstrate that God’s command is arbitrary and inconsistent with his character, then this argument of yours doesn’t have merit.

        Also, as I’ve said, God is the ultimate standard for good. He is the Christian’s ultimate presupposition and an ultimate presupposition by its nature of being “ultimate” cannot be subjected to another standard. All chains of reasoning must come to an end. I.e. there cannot be an infinite regression of justifications otherwise all demonstrations would be incomplete, and therefore knowledge would be an impossibility.

        If belief A comes from B and B comes from C and C comes from D, and so forth, eventually there must be an ultimate presupposition that all other beliefs are based on (or fall on). Therefore, all chains of reasoning are inherently circular at some point. This is simply unavoidable. However, this does not mean all circles are valid or sound. Only by presupposing the biblical worldview can one justify the preconditions of intelligibility including morality. Therefore, I am justified in my ultimate presupposition that the biblical worldview is true, as it is the only worldview that can lead to genuine knowledge.

        The atheistic worldview is an invalid circle of reasoning because it is not internally consistent or self-sufficient, but instead it has to borrow concepts from the Christian worldview to sustain itself. And atheistic presuppositions would make genuine knowledge impossible. Therefore, since the biblical worldview is the only true worldview, it must be the only standard in all of our thinking if our knowledge is genuine. Therefore, anything the Bible says about itself must be true, and the Bible says that only God is good (Mark 10:18). And since only God is good, he is the only acceptable standard for our morality.

        The ignored: “News flash: If it’s wrong to kill babies one day because god says it is, and the other time it’s wrong to NOT kill babies because god says it is, it’s your “morality” that is subjective.

        No, because you still haven’t demonstrated that with the context taken into account, that God is being inconsistent with his character. Do you not agree that when we are studying a written document the context is essential?

        The ignored: “Unless of course, “god” tells you otherwise. All you’ve done is show that if you ever either
        1) get a message from god telling you to kill people, as with Susan Smith, then you will believe that it’d be immoral to not kill people
        2) become a non-believer then any reason that non-believers have for not killing people will not have any traction with you.

        The Bible tells us to test the spirits to see if they are from God (1 John 4:1). Obviously this means that we are to check everything against the written revelation of God (the Bible). Tell me, what exactly is it about Susan Smith’s account that you think would be justifiable from the Bible with the context taken into account?

        Furthermore, I must ask again, why does what she did bother you so much given your atheistic presuppositions? You wouldn’t care if she killed bacteria by using antibacterial products, would you? But the problem is that you still haven’t explained why humans are more valuable than bacteria. If you can’t even explain this, then you should also complain every time you see someone taking antibiotics or using antibacterial products (or conversely, you shouldn’t think killing humans is more sinister than killing bacteria).

        Also, I reject the reasons you give for not killing people because thus far you have not given a rational or objective reason for your morality. E.g. one of the reasons you say you care about humans is for the continuance of the human race, which is simply begging the questions, i.e. “I care about humans because I care about humans”.

        The ignored: “Again, all you do is show how depraved your “moral system” is.

        The concept of being “depraved” actually doesn’t comport with your atheistic worldview. Again, the very fact that you are clinging to concepts that your worldview cannot justify shows that you’re borrowing from outside of your worldview (from the Christian worldview). Therefore, your worldview is necessarily false since it cannot even support itself.
        The ignored: “People’s “value” to god does not do a bit of good since he is always giving orders to kill people, including babies.

        Even if what you say is true, what is wrong with being inconsistent? This idea that we should be consistent only makes sense from the biblical worldview. And once again, if God gives a command, then he has a very good and just reason for it; so, unless you can demonstrate from the context of the passages you’re referring to that God is acting in a way that is inconsistent with his character, then your argument simply isn’t valid.

        The ignored: “How much does he value “his image” anyway if he’s willing to commit infanticide?
        Even if he committed infanticide, again, given your atheistic presuppositions, why is this wrong? Again you are showing that you need to borrow concepts from the biblical worldview to make sense of your own. And if the biblical worldview must exist to support yours, then your worldview cannot be true. And as our righteous judge and creator, God is perfectly just in executing his judgment on us at any time.

        The ignored: “Children have value to their parents, yet when I had pointed out that one of the reasons for valuing human life was for future generations, you (or the other commentator, I forget which) rejected that.
        This merely shifts the problem to the parents. Why do parents feel that their children are valuable?

        Do parents value their children because they are valuable or are the children valuable because the parents value them? If it is the former then you are stuck at square-one in trying to explain where their value comes from. If it is the latter, then you’re back to an arbitrary standard (as I explain below).
        And, as I’ve already explained, valuing human life for future generations is simply question begging, i.e., “I value humans because I value humans”. So of course this argument of yours is rejected because it is a fallacious argument. Again, repeating a fallacious argument does not eventually make a sound argument.

        The ignored: “So: Humans valuing their children means nothing. God valuing us as his “creations” or “children” gives real value.

        If a parent doesn’t love his children, do the children lose their value? Many parents don’t value their children. If the children are still valuable even if the parents don’t value them, then where does the value come from?

        Obviously if the children don’t lose their value when the parents don’t value them, then the value of the children is not contingent on the parents. Therefore, your answer that children are valuable because they have value to their parents is another fallacious argument.

        the ignored: “And if it’s just “opinion” that it’s a good thing for humans to keep the human race from going extinct, then I can’t really say much to that.

        Actually you haven’t been able to say much to anything, at least not in the sense of giving a logical argument.
        Is continuing the human race good because humans have deemed our continuance to be good (subjective), or do we continue the human race because it’s good to do so ( which brings us back to square on in need to give a logical basis for our moral standard)?

        • the_ignored says:

          Actually you haven’t been able to say much to anything, at least not in the sense of giving a logical argument.
          You haven’t said anything worth responding to! Just the same assertions that it’s GOD who is necessary for an objective basis for morality, even though he or she or it or they are inconsistent.

          You ask WHY do parents value their children? Why does your alleged god value US?

          Why does that not stop him from breaking the rules he sets for us and kills babies when he wants to anyway?

          And, at the end…you reveal that you need a particular outside source to tell you how to behave, and why. Even though the bible doesn’t even really SAY why, other than god says it!
          Is continuing the human race good because humans have deemed our continuance to be good (subjective), or do we continue the human race because it’s good to do so ( which brings us back to square on in need to give a logical basis for our moral standard)?

          How is biblegod a logical basis for morality anyway, given that he’s so inconsistent?

  17. Jim says:

    Lithp says: No. I don’t know why you would even think that. If this being is so bloody powerful, it can do its own dirty work.

    I guess you are saying you don’t accept my hypothetical situation since you didn’t really honestly address it. Given credible evidence, why would you be so bold as to ignore it? Who are you to judge the motivation and methods of God? You miss the complexity of God in that He is both a perfectly Holy God and perfectly just God. He is also a perfectly loving God. That is why, despite the ugliness of the world, He has redeemed it.

    Lithp says: “That’s not what it means. Essentially, “survival of the fittest” means, “If a lifeform is doing something that will cause it to die in the current environment, it will die, if it is doing something that will cause it to live, it will live.” … “Also, homosexuality is not a self-defeating behavior evolutionarillay speaking. For starters, if it was, it wouldn’t be around anymore.”

    By your definition and taken to its logical conclusion, homosexuality cannot become the “successful” strategy because if it became the only strategy the lifeform (and all members) would die. You are also hedging your argument…“but it also results, probably more frequently, in not doing that.” Without substantiating data, your arguments are arbitrary.

    Lithp says: Hahaha oh wow. “I don’t know what I’m talking about, so YOU’RE ignorant!”

    You seem to have difficulty with comprehension. The verse does not say, nor did I imply, that we (for it does include everyone) are ignorant. It says our hearts are deceitful and therefore we are without excuse. Being ignorant implies some amount of defense.

    • Lithp says:

      “I guess you are saying you don’t accept my hypothetical situation since you didn’t really honestly address it.”

      I did address it, you just refuse to believe the answer, because it is not what you arrogantly assumed that I would think.

      “Given credible evidence, why would you be so bold as to ignore it?”

      I like the implication that getting this evidence is already highly improbable.

      What am I ignoring? God’s directive? I guess I can spare a “Sorry, but no, you’re gonna have to find someone else, it’s not you, it’s me.”

      “Who are you to judge the motivation and methods of God?”

      You’re right, how dare I have an opinion of the homicide someone wants me to perform?

      “You miss the complexity of God in that He is both a perfectly Holy God and perfectly just God. He is also a perfectly loving God. That is why, despite the ugliness of the world, He has redeemed it.”

      God does not exist, outside of being a fictional character who behaves in erratic, illogical fashions, because he has been pieced together by hundreds of human authors throughout the centuries, most of whom didn’t know jack about jack.

      “By your definition and taken to its logical conclusion, homosexuality cannot become the “successful” strategy because if it became the only strategy the lifeform (and all members) would die.”

      That’s not the logical conclusion. Again, you don’t understand evolution. There is something called “secondary strategies,” which a minority of the population, who ordinarily would not be able to compete, does instead of the primary strategy, because it gives them an edge. In this case, the primary strategy is direct breeding, while the secondary strategy is care for orphans, who probably have some relation to you, & thus help to pass on your genes. Shockingly, combining 2 strategies with different strengths & weaknesses, results in more efficiency overall than using a single strategy.

      Also, it is unlikely, but still possible, for heterosexuality to become an extinct trait in a given species. The main barrier is reproduction, however, a sufficiently intelligent species (such as humans) can figure out how to breed without directly having sex. It really isn’t hard, you just have to take some sperm & put it in a vagina. And this is assuming that we are somehow incapable of evolving parthenogenesis, like reptiles–there is at least 1 known species of lizard that reproduces with only females.

      “You are also hedging your argument…“but it also results, probably more frequently, in not doing that.” Without substantiating data, your arguments are arbitrary.”

      If you want to count the number of species who intentionally kill their own, versus those who do not, be my guest.

      “You seem to have difficulty with comprehension.”

      People do tend to say this when they get called on saying dim things.

      One final note, I’m looking for responses by Ctrl+F’ing my name. If anyone says something to me, but it isn’t a response to a post of mine, & doesn’t mention my name, I won’t see it.

      • Jim says:

        Jim said: “You seem to have difficulty with comprehension.”
        Lithp said: People do tend to say this when they get called on saying dim things.

        Abusive ad hominem, the last resort of the irrational. It is not my fault that you confused ignorant with self deceived.

        Lithp said: That’s not the logical conclusion. Again, you don’t understand evolution. There is something called “secondary strategies,” which a minority of the population…there is at least 1 known species of lizard that reproduces with only females.

        I agree that there is no end to the depravity of man and his ability to justify all manner of abhorrent behaviors. The Bible does not condemn asexual reproduction in non-human organisms. However, it does condemn human homosexuality. The fact that two men or two women can care for a child is irrelevant to the argument for a basis of morality or a cogent justification for homosexuality.

        Lithp said: God does not exist, outside of being a fictional character who behaves in erratic, illogical fashions, because he has been pieced together by hundreds of human authors throughout the centuries, most of whom didn’t know jack about jack.

        You merely claiming God does not exist doesn’t make it so. You have not presented any logical rationale for your claims so far, only emotional, erratic, illogical ranting.

        Lithp said: You’re right, how dare I have an opinion of the homicide someone wants me to perform?

        I desire your rational opinion. The question was not about someone wanting you to commit homicide. Do we charge our soldiers with homicide when they return from battle? You have ignored my argument that the people in question were at war, as well as requesting a specific example of God directing the killing of a specific child. The request was for you to apply some honest introspection. Unfortunately, given Jer 17:9 I believe that you are currently incapable.

        Lithp said: What am I ignoring? God’s directive? I guess I can spare a “Sorry, but no, you’re gonna have to find someone else, it’s not you, it’s me.”

        That was Moses’ strategy at first. If you are right about God, you will have no worries. If you are wrong, you may have an unpleasant eternity to contemplate your mistake. I pray that the Lord will change your heart.

        Jim said: “I guess you are saying you don’t accept my hypothetical situation since you didn’t really honestly address it.”
        Lithp said: I did address it, you just refuse to believe the answer, because it is not what you arrogantly assumed that I would think.

        Again, abusive ad hominem. You answered:

        No. I don’t know why you would even think that. If this being is so bloody powerful, it can do its own dirty work.

        How God accomplishes his work is irrelevant to this argument. You dismissively ignored the assertion, quite arbitrarily I might add.

        • Lithp says:

          “Abusive ad hominem, the last resort of the irrational. It is not my fault that you confused ignorant with self deceived.”

          I didn’t confuse anything. Go look up the word if you don’t understand why I used it the way I did.

          “I agree that there is no end to the depravity of man and his ability to justify all manner of abhorrent behaviors.”

          Such as infanticide.

          “The Bible does not condemn asexual reproduction in non-human organisms.”

          Probably because they didn’t know about it.

          “However, it does condemn human homosexuality. The fact that two men or two women can care for a child is irrelevant to the argument for a basis of morality or a cogent justification for homosexuality.”

          No one said anything about a moral argument. I was criticizing your claim that homosexuality was “evolutionarily self-defeating.” It was wrong. You were wrong. Because you don’t understand evolution. I don’t give a crap if you think it’s moral, it’s an observation of nature, & nature does not conform to your standards of decency.

          I happen to think that you are a morally repugnant little man, that doesn’t stop you from existing.

          “You merely claiming God does not exist doesn’t make it so. You have not presented any logical rationale for your claims so far, only emotional, erratic, illogical ranting.”

          You wanted to preach at me, so I preached at you. Tit for tat. Seems to me like your problem is that you just can’t handle it as well as you can dish it out. The fact that someone doesn’t care about your beliefs, considers them completely devoid of any intellectual value, & is willing to tell you in no uncertain terms, seems very distressing to you.

          “I desire your rational opinion. The question was not about someone wanting you to commit homicide.”

          Homicide is literally “killing of man/humans.” Unlawful homicide is referred to as “murder.” Even if that weren’t the case, you know very well what was being referred to. Quit playing semantics games.

          “You have ignored my argument that the people in question were at war, as well as requesting a specific example of God directing the killing of a specific child. The request was for you to apply some honest introspection. Unfortunately, given Jer 17:9 I believe that you are currently incapable.”

          “I want your honest opinion, by the way, if you answer any way other than how I’d prefer, I’ll accuse you of lying.”

          “That was Moses’ strategy at first. If you are right about God, you will have no worries. If you are wrong, you may have an unpleasant eternity to contemplate your mistake. I pray that the Lord will change your heart.”

          Now who’s ranting emotionally? Probably not you, because that would involve you getting off of your high horse for 2 bloody seconds.

          “Again, abusive ad hominem.”

          No matter how much you whine about it, the answer’s not going to change. I wouldn’t do it, because I don’t want to. I don’t want to do it if there isn’t a God, I don’t want to do it if there is a God, I don’t want to do it if I’m the freakin’ Chosen One of the Prophecy of Sucks to be That Baby. And don’t you even think about shifting those goal posts. The question I responded to was whether or not I would kill a baby if God asked. I would not, because I don’t base my decisions on what other people want me to do. It shouldn’t be that difficult of a concept to grasp.

          • Brian Forbes says:

            The question I responded to was whether or not I would kill a baby if God asked. I would not, because I don’t base my decisions on what other people want me to do.

            I don’t mean to but in, but this is an interesting question. Am I right to assume that, for you, moral decisions are not based in what the Creator wants or the King commands, but what you’re feeling about the given situation? Are morals based on your feelings? If that’s the case, are you allowed to impose your morals on other people (like MLK, Jr. did)? I’m not with the others on this thread who say that you have to be perfectly logical in your positions. I’m just trying to assess where you’re at.

          • Jim says:

            Your argument is lessened by your continuous ad hominem attacks and senseless ranting. Since you are bent on hurtling this discourse into an irrational abyss, further discussions are pointless. I’m a firm believer that words mean things; however, when you use them they don’t.

            • Lithp says:

              Jim: And I say that you just don’t want to deal with critics that you can’t push around. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

              Brian: Not quite. Morality is not based on what people want you to do, but that does not necessarily mean that it’s whatever you want to do. There are 2 types of morality. There’s “I feel this is wrong” & “This is wrong because of a rational reason.” “I feel this is wrong” cannot be fairly applied to others. “This is wrong because of a rational reason” can. Some have an agenda, & try to conflate the 2, either making a certain moral position look irrational or their own moral position rational (even absolute) when it’s actually just their feelings on the matter. It’s not always easy to find the right solution, but that is what I would claim is the self-evident foundation. Now, the important thing about “Rational Reason” is that you can defend it even if you, subjectively, do not agree with it.

              If you ask me, as someone did, “Would you consider killing an infant if God asked you to,” the answer is simply no. It’s just not something that I would want to do, & I can’t help it if certain people can’t deal with that. God telling me to do it has no effect on me whatsoever. It doesn’t matter why he wants me to do it, it’s simply not something that I could handle doing.

              • Jim says:

                Lithp said: “Jim: And I say that you just don’t want to deal with critics that you can’t push around. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

                Two things, you don’t know me and this is text, no one gets pushed around here. If you feel that way, perhaps it’s the stirrings of knowledge in your soul and/or the Holy Spirit working within you.

              • Brian Forbes says:

                I don’t think I’d describe it that way. I don’t try to conflate the two. I try to separate the two, and they keep merging themselves back together. You can either get your morals from your gut or someone else’s gut (i.e. God’s morals), but it’s not possible to be completely rational about it. If you keep asking why, eventually, you’ll come to a position you hold to because it feels right.

                Say I want to argue you into feeding squirrels at the park. You are convinced that it’s wrong, because you saw a really fat squirrel once that couldn’t climb a tree anymore and a dog got ’em. Poor little squirrel. But I think it’s ok, as I toss the little fat squirrel almonds, and I explain to you that squirrels are here for our benefit, to make us feel good, to eat from our hands and be a sort-of public pet. You argue that it’s not good for the squirrel, that it will spread disease to people or starve in the winter when humans aren’t going to the park.

                Can you see that both positions are based in our guts? I may argue you into my position, or you may argue me out of my position, but all we’re doing when that happens is drawing on a more fundamental gut feeling. For example, I don’t want to be fined by a park ranger, so I won’t feed the squirrels. More than I want to feel the squirrel’s fur, I want to avoid a fine. Maybe I have a fundamental need to conform or avoid conflict. That’s how it works with every argument. It still either comes down to trust in myself or trust in others. I trust God. You don’t. Unless that fundamental bridge is gapped, I won’t convince you of my morality.

                So the real first step here is probably not to convince you that the foundation of all reasoning is the existence of the Biblical God, but to find out what happened in your childhood that caused you to fight against that idea. I know God exists, because I’ve seen miracles. I’m convinced of his character, because I’ve studied the life of Jesus in depth. The question becomes, why haven’t you seen miracles? Why did Jesus’ message not hit you like it hit me? And those sorts of things take a lot more communication than we can do here. Unless we can find common ground here, our morals will not mesh. It’s not always a matter of logic. It’s often a matter of gut impulses and personal experience.

  18. Lithp says:

    Man, what’s with this Christian Apologetics trend of defining abstract concepts of god? Aren’t you afraid that word is going to lose whatever little meaning it still has? Videogames are my God, because they fill me with awe! The internet is my God, because I devote time to it! Medicine is my God, because it heals me!

    Alternatively, none of those things are gods, because they aren’t supposedly supernatural, conscious forces. And, shockingly, things that aren’t gods have the ability to do certain things that are attributed to gods. Because we all know that only The One True God would breathe, or walk, or talk….

    • Josef says:

      Here Lithp commits the straw-man fallacy; when Christians speak of other “gods” we do so in the broadly defined sense of false-gods, i.e. idols. No Christian on here has claimed that so-called gods are supernatural or have the capabilities of the true God (the biblical God).

      And according to dictionary[dot]com, “God” can mean:

      6. ( lowercase ) an image of a deity; an idol.
      7. ( lowercase ) any deified person or object.

      So there we have it; when a Christian speaks of so-called gods, we do it within a perfectly acceptable definition.

      The real mystery to me is why we can’t seem to get an atheist on here who actually engages the arguments instead of looking for ways to dodge them.

      • Jim says:

        Precise and accurate. Well said Josef.

      • Lithp says:

        You have proved nothing. All those definitions say is that a god is a god. You haven’t explained what makes some things gods and others not gods. It seems clear to me: All officially recognized gods are believed to be both conscious & supernatural by their followers.

        If you ever get around to actually explaining the ground rules that you’ve made up for these debates, perhaps you can also explain what “engage in arguments” means, because near as I can tell, it only counts when someone agrees with you.

        • Josef says:

          Actually the point was made quite well. You claimed that, if Christians keep throwing out the word “god” to ordinary objects that it will lose its meaning because stuff like video games, medicine, etc aren’t, “supernatural, conscious forces”. However, the word “god” doesn’t always refer to the God, but rather it can refer to idols and deified objects. And it is in this way that Christians use the word when speaking of something other than the biblical God. If you don’t like that answer, then take it up with the writers of the dictionary. But Christians use the term properly within the recognized definitions of the word.

          Lithp: “It seems clear to me: All officially recognized gods are believed to be both conscious & supernatural by their followers.

          Lithp commits the straw-man fallacy; who said Christians “officially recognize” these so-called gods?What we may call a god in the sense of being an idol isn’t an official recognition that the idol is Deity.

          Lithp: “If you ever get around to actually explaining the ground rules…

          Well how about for starters we use officially recognized definitions of words, not just what seems “clear to you”.

  19. Josef says:

    Lithp,

    You did a pretty good job filling the room with “smoke and mirrors”. But unfortunately for you there is no amount of smoke that can hide the fact that you did not answer my question or address the problem I presented with your position. So there is no need to address your entire post, I’ll just make this brief:

    Lithp: “The simple fact is, you’re adhering to a double-standard. You want me to say, “The law,” or “Empathy,” just so you can fire back with, “Oh, but different countries have different laws” or, “Not everyone observes empathy.”

    I’m not adhering to a double-standard. Lest you forget, you’re the one who said that it is nonsense to believe there is more than one universal standard for morality. But if this is true, then it is perfectly legitimate to ask why you would expect all to abide by your standard, when they could be obey a different standard. You’re the one who is actually showing you have double-standards; because on one hand, you’re claiming that there isn’t a single universal standard, but on the other, you’re expecting everyone to obey what you believe is moral.

    And as it just so happens, the hypothetical example you gave actually does counter your position pretty well. I love it when skeptics end up undermining their own position, even if it was just an attempt to mock what you thought I would say. J

    Lithp: “…if you want a Moral Rule That Can Never Ever Ever EVER Be Violated Under Any Circumstances, that does not exist.

    Oh really? So under what circumstance would it be moral to hit someone with a baseball bat with no other intention than to harm them?

    Lithp: “ You could attempt to make an argument that raping & pillaging are good, but it would likely be idiotic, & amount to little more than “It’s good for everyone because -I- get what -I- want.”

    For someone who thinks that there is more than one moral standard, you sure do have a problem with people not adhering to your beliefs about morality. And even if these actions only lead to the individual getting what he wants, so what? Why would that be immoral for him to only think of himself?

    Lithp: “Moreover, it’s obviously going to fail the empathy test, because while you might have gotten something out of it, you’ve increased the overall suffering in the world.

    But who said increasing the suffering of the world is immoral? Remember just because it’s wrong according to your moral standard, that doesn’t mean someone else might not have a moral standard that says differently.

    Plus, this is pretty rich coming from someone who thinks it is nonsense to believe there is only one moral standard. And didn’t you just say that some morals can be violated under certain circumstances, i.e. moral relativism? So under what circumstance would it be ok to only look out for oneself and increase the suffering of the world?

    Lithp: “Now, this “evolutionary perspective” is precisely no point at all. I know this is hard for you to grasp, but evolution is science.

    Wow hand-waving finished off with a stipulative definition fallacy, i.e. redefining a word just to get the upper-hand in an argument.

    Science as the common definition would suggest, is knowledge gained via the scientific method, i.e. observation, experimentation, testability, repeatability; none of which applies to evolution (in the molecules-to-man evolution sense).

    Note: It still amazes me how “Schizophrenic” (I use this with the layman definition of split-personality disorder; I know true clinical Schizophrenia is different) atheists can be; one on hand, Lithp says that it is nonsense to believe there is only one universal standard for morality. But then on the other hand, he seems to reject the idea that someone could have a standard different than his own. He is like a man who claims that it is totally safe to cross the road. But every time we see this man cross the road, he always looks both ways before even stepping foot on the road. Does his man really believe the road is totally safe? Absolutely not. With his words he claims the road is totally safe, but by his actions, he shows that he does not really believe what he says.

    Lithp is like the man in the analogy. With his words he claims it is nonsense to believe there is only one moral standard, but by his beliefs it is obvious that he does not truly believe what he says. That’s because in his heart of hearts, he does know there is only one universal standard. He knows that it is wrong to rape regardless of who we are, or where we live, or when we live. That’s because he knows the biblical God; with his words he may deny God; he may have even convinced himself that he does not believe, but his actions/beliefs about morality shows he does know the biblical God. Only the biblical God can account for this universal morality that he adheres to, but denies with his words.

    • the_ignored says:

      Josef
      That’s because in his heart of hearts, he does know there is only one universal standard.
      Unless you’re a telepath, you have no right to make that claim. Oh, of course, there’s a bible verse that says it, isn’t there?

      The arrogance of faith: To judge any non-believer, even ones one has never met by the dictates of a frusty old book!

      He knows that it is wrong to rape regardless of who we are, or where we live, or when we live.
      Unless of course, “god” allows or commands it:
      Deuteronomy 21 11-14
      Numbers 31 31:18

      Right! You’re using the god of the bible to make a case that rape is WRONG??

      • Josef says:

        I said: “That’s because in his heart of hearts, he does know there is only one universal standard.

        The ignored: “Unless you’re a telepath, you have no right to make that claim. Oh, of course, there’s a bible verse that says it, isn’t there?

        Of course there is, the God of the Bible has revealed to us that He has provided sufficient evidence so that everyone knows Him. You can deny it, and you may have even deceived yourself to the point where you don’t think you know Him, but your actions show otherwise.

        For example, you claim that I have “no right” to make the claim that I did. But this would imply that there is an objective moral standard that you think should be applicable to me and that I violated it. But where does this objective moral standard come from? It certainly does not comport with your atheistic worldview, but instead it only comports with the Christian worldview.

        The fact that you cling to such concepts of morality that simply cannot exist given your atheistic presuppositions, shows that you do know your worldview is wrong.

        The ignored: “The arrogance of faith…
        But there is nothing wrong with being “arrogant” given your atheistic presuppositions.

        I said: “He knows that it is wrong to rape regardless of who we are, or where we live, or when we live.

        The ignored: “Unless of course, “god” allows or commands it:

        Deuteronomy 21 11-14
        Numbers 31 31:18

        Right! You’re using the god of the bible to make a case that rape is WRONG??

        Um, how about actually try reading those passages? Where exactly does it say to rape those women?

        Btw, I haven’t forgotten that you still have no explained to me why given your atheistic presuppositions, that humans are any more valuable than flesh-eating bacteria.

        • the_ignored says:

          (sorry, I botched the formatting a bit on my last reply, so for readability’s sake, I repost it here)!

          Of course there is, the God of the Bible has revealed to us that He has provided sufficient evidence so that everyone knows Him.
          That explains why there has never been any missionaries needed to spread the gospel to the “new world” then. I knew that there had to have been a reason!

          You can deny it, and you may have even deceived yourself to the point where you don’t think you know Him, but your actions show otherwise.
          How so? The word of the same bible that can’t even describe nature accurately? (ex. mustard seed, the “tree” that it’s supposed to grow into?)

          Wait for it…here comes some more presupper baloney:
          For example, you claim that I have “no right” to make the claim that I did. But this would imply that there is an objective moral standard that you think should be applicable to me and that I violated it.
          Actually, it’s just this: You do not have access to my mind, Josef. Therefore you can not tell what I am thinking, or what my motives are.

          But your religiously-inspired arrogance makes you make that assumption, even without any evidence whatsoever.

          But where does this objective moral standard come from? It certainly does not comport with your atheistic worldview, but instead it only comports with the Christian worldview.
          Not the worldview of any other so-called deity? Can you show that it’s ONLY biblegod who is the “justification” for this so-called “objective” moral standard?

          For example: Is baby-killing objectively wrong? Yes or no. If you say “yes” then look at all the times that biblegod ordered the killing of babies in the OT and all the miscarriages going on today.

          One would think that an “objective” moral standard would imply some sort of consistency? I guess not, not in your worldview.

          Josef quoting me here:
          ——-
          Deuteronomy 21 11-14
          Numbers 31 31:18

          Right! You’re using the god of the bible to make a case that rape is WRONG??”
          ——–

          Um, how about actually try reading those passages? Where exactly does it say to rape those women?
          Oh I see….you’re looking for the actual rape “rape” aren’t you? So verses like: …but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. don’t strongly imply it for you? Where in the context of that verse is consent implied from the woman? Especially since her relatives have all been killed off!

          Sigh.

          Btw, I haven’t forgotten that you still have not explained to me why given your atheistic presuppositions, that humans are any more valuable than flesh-eating bacteria.
          I have, you just don’t accept the reasons. There is a difference. Not that you care.

          I’m wondering why I should bother: You will not accept anything unless it’s biblegod who tells you. Not “allah” or any other potential god, but biblegod himself.

          The survival of the human race, ones’ own lineage, caring for the well-being of one’s own children, etc. don’t mean squat for you unless biblegod tells you they have value.

          Don’t give up your faith, since it’s obviously the only things keeping you from becoming a criminal. Just don’t poison other people with your filth. We don’t need any more ticking time bombs thank you very much.

          • Josef says:

            the ignored: “That explains why there has never been any missionaries needed to spread the gospel to the “new world” then. I knew that there had to have been a reason!

            I believe it’s been made pretty clear on here that while everyone knows God in the sense that they know He exists, that doesn’t mean that they know Him in the sense of worshiping Him and giving Him honor. In other words, general revelation is sufficient to be condemened, which is why we have missionaries.

            the ignored: “How so? The word of the same bible that can’t even describe nature accurately? (ex. mustard seed, the “tree” that it’s supposed to grow into?)

            The mustard seed has already been explained to you. If you don’t feel like the answer is sufficient, then state your reasons why.

            I said: “For example, you claim that I have “no right” to make the claim that I did. But this would imply that there is an objective moral standard that you think should be applicable to me and that I violated it.

            the ignored: “Actually, it’s just this: You do not have access to my mind, Josef. Therefore you can not tell what I am thinking, or what my motives are.

            This misses the issue entirely. Even if I don’t have access to your mind or know what your motives are, so what? This still doesn’t explain why I would have no “right” to make the claim that I did. What I have the “right” to do implies that there is a moral standard that you expect me to abide by. Unfortunately your atheistic presuppositions cannot provide a logical basis for such a standard.

            the ignored: “But your religiously-inspired arrogance makes you make that assumption, even without any evidence whatsoever.

            In the atheistic worldview that you espouse, there is nothing wrong with being arrogant or misrepresenting people. I do agree that we should be humble and not purposely misrepresent each other, but that’s because my Christian worldview comports with morality.

            Also I have given evidence: you espouse a worldview that cannot account for moral absolutes, but yet, you expect everyone to behave as if they exist. That’s because you do know the biblical God which is why you are constantly relying on laws that are contingent on His existence.

            With your words you may deny Him, but your actions, and the things you object to, show me that you do not truly believe what you claim. You are very much like a man who says that it is totally safe to cross the road, but then this man looks both ways before even stepping foot on the road. Obviously this man’s actions shows that he does not believe what he claims with his words.

            Not the worldview of any other so-called deity? Can you show that it’s ONLY biblegod who is the “justification” for this so-called “objective” moral standard?

            Yes, I have explained it many times on here. Perhaps you may want to find my posts explaining this, otherwise, I feel that it would be a waste of time as you’re not a theist. So why should I waste time refuting a worldview that you do not believe? But if you want to know my answer on this, then find my posts on here, or read Dr. Lisle’s book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation as I am in agreement with his answer.

            For example: Is baby-killing objectively wrong? Yes or no. If you say “yes” then look at all the times that biblegod ordered the killing of babies in the OT and all the miscarriages going on today.

            Yes because humans are made in the image of God, and God has given man dominion over creation, but not over each other. God does have dominion over us, however, and He being our Sovereign Lord, is permitted to decide whether or not it is ok to do so.

            One would think that an “objective” moral standard would imply some sort of consistency? I guess not, not in your worldview.

            You have not demonstrated that it isn’t consistent. As I’ve said, God has not given man dominion over each other, but God does have dominion over us and can decide when it is moral to take an action that He has not given us permission to decide for ourselves.

            the ignored: “Oh I see….you’re looking for the actual rape “rape” aren’t you? So verses like: …but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. don’t strongly imply it for you? Where in the context of that verse is consent implied from the woman? Especially since her relatives have all been killed off!

            In your worldview, why is rape wrong? The fact that you’re disgusted with rape, again, demonstrates that you’re relying on a moral standard that simply does not comport with your worldview. As I’ve said before, the problem of evil in the atheist worldview is non-existent, because there is no such thing as “evil” if atheism is true.

            Also, the simple fact is that the text never claims the girls were raped. The Midianites were committing a very serious crime: they were leading the Israelites to go astray and worship other gods. This is a very serious offense, so God justly took actions against them. So what was supposed to come of the girls who no longer had families to support them and take care of them? These girls were likely too young to be married and too young to be slaves, so God essentially allowed them to be absorbed into the Israelites, i.e. adopted.

            I said: “Btw, I haven’t forgotten that you still have not explained to me why given your atheistic presuppositions, that humans are any more valuable than flesh-eating bacteria.

            the ignored: “I have, you just don’t accept the reasons. There is a difference. Not that you care.

            That’s because you’ve never provided an answer that isn’t subjective or arbitrary.

            the ignored: “I’m wondering why I should bother: You will not accept anything unless it’s biblegod who tells you. Not “allah” or any other potential god, but biblegod himself.

            Of course, because only the biblical God can account for why there is absolute morality; this would be like saying the only answer I accept to 1+1 is 2. I don’t accept that 3 or 5 or 5,000 are acceptable answers.

            the ignored: “The survival of the human race, ones’ own lineage, caring for the well-being of one’s own children, etc. don’t mean squat for you unless biblegod tells you they have value.

            Again, why should we care about the survival of the human race? Why are humans any more valuable than flesh-eating bacteria in your worldview? Of course I agree that we are because of our value to God. But in the atheistic worldview, what gives humans value that isn’t based upon mere opinion?

            the ignored: “Don’t give up your faith, since it’s obviously the only things keeping you from becoming a criminal. Just don’tpoison other people with your filth. We don’t need any more ticking time bombs thank you very much.

            Again, your atheistic worldview is failing you so you need to borrow concepts that only comport with the Christian worldview. Why do you suggest that criminals are despicable? If atheism is true then being a criminal wouldn’t be any more despicable than being an out-standing citizen. That’s because if atheism is true, then there are no such thing as moral absolutes, but instead morality would be relative at best. And what you find despicable someone else might find desirable.

            All of your objections show that you do know the biblical God as you are constantly relying on laws that only He can provide a rational basis for. Like I said, you’re like a man who claims that it is totally safe to cross the road, but he looks both ways before even stepping foot on the road. You are clinging to a worldview that does not comport with absolute moral standards, but yet, you argue as if they exist. That’s because in your heart of hearts you know your atheistic worldview is false. Just as the man in the analogy knows that the road is not truly danger-free.

            • Micah says:

              You are very much like a man who says that it is totally safe to cross the road, but then this man looks both ways before even stepping foot on the road. Obviously this man’s actions shows that he does not believe what he claims with his words.

              I like that analogy Josef. I’ll have to keep it in mind! 🙂

            • the_ignored says:

              Josef
              I believe it’s been made pretty clear on here that while everyone knows God in the sense that they know He exists, that doesn’t mean that they know Him in the sense of worshiping Him and giving Him honor. In other words, general revelation is sufficient to be condemened, which is why we have missionaries.
              Can you prove that somehow everyone “knows” that YOUR god exists?

              The mustard seed has already been explained to you. If you don’t feel like the answer is sufficient, then state your reasons why.
              Oh? Let’s look at that “explanation”!
              Lisle
              [Dr. Lisle: It would seem that you are unaware of what a parable is. Jesus was making an analogy about the growth of the kingdom, which starts out very small and will grow very large – which indeed it has. Why would you assume that “tree” is being used in a modern taxonomic sense, and why would you assume that “least” means “smallest” anyway? It seems like you really haven’t thought this through.]
              Look who’s talking! Why didn’t “jesus” just SAY outright what you just said about faith then? Why use a flawed analogy? Even more: Why assume that this section of the bible is metaphorical while Genesis is literal?

              I suspect the reason is because the mustard seed analogy he uses is too easily proved wrong.

              • Aaron says:

                I get the sense that you found out about the parable of the mustard seed from somewhere other than the Bible, because the Bible answers both of your questions in the same chapter. Matthew 13:10-17 tells us why Jesus spoke in parables, and Matthew 13:31 (the introduction to the parable of the mustard seed) specifically tells us that it is a parable, and Jesus used the comparative term “like”, indicating a simile. If it is a parable and a simile, it is by definition figurative. Genesis, however, has no such indicator, and it is written as a historical narrative. That being the case, it would only make sense to interpret Genesis as a historical narrative, because it was written as such.

                • the_ignored says:

                  Aaron…what you said makes no difference whatsoever. I know that it was a parable (a story used to illustrate a point) and that jesus was using a simile.

                  You do not understand though, that jesus had said that the mustard seed was “the lease of alll seeds”. Why not just say “one of the least”?

                  And to the person who said elsewhere that “least” did not necessarily mean “small”: if “least” did not imply small size, what did it mean?

                  • Aaron says:

                    I believe that through copying and pasting I can quote you saying, “Why assume that this section of the bible is metaphorical while Genesis is literal?”
                    You asked a non-rhetorical question which I then answered, and now you say you already knew the answer. Care to elaborate on why this occurred?
                    I know exactly what Jesus said, and this point has been covered. Your other question about what “least” could mean besides size has also been answered, you just don’t seem to have read it. So you have several perspectives and ideas that have been given to you, you have just rejected them. I suspect this is because you just don’t want there to be answer.

            • the_ignored says:

              When it comes to baby-killing:
              Yes because humans are made in the image of God, and God has given man dominion over creation, but not over each other. God does have dominion over us, however, and He being our Sovereign Lord, is permitted to decide whether or not it is ok to do so.
              So, baby-killing is moral when god says it is, and immoral when he says it isn’t?

              Sounds inconsistent to me.

              So…”god” is morally “perfect” then because why, exactly? What is so great about his actions that he is the standard for the rest of us?

              Might makes right, maybe?

              • Micah says:

                Hi,

                >When it comes to baby-killing:
                Yes because humans are made in the image of God, and God has given man dominion over creation, but not over each other. God does have dominion over us, however, and He being our Sovereign Lord, is permitted to decide whether or not it is ok to do so.
                >So, baby-killing is moral when god says it is, and immoral when he says it isn’t?
                Sounds inconsistent to me.

                You seem to be under the impression that God is bound to the same rules we are, this isn’t necessarily true. God is our creator and Judge, He is the one who gave us life and He is the one who can take it away if He wants.
                Also, based on your worldview, why is killing wrong at all? Can you explain that rationally?

                >So…”god” is morally “perfect” then because why, exactly?

                Because He is what defines ‘good’ and ‘perfection’. Apart from God, terms like ‘good’ and ‘moral’ don’t make any sense. Why should one bag of chemicals care what happens to another bag of chemicals?

                >What is so great about his actions that he is the standard for the rest of us?
                Might makes right, maybe?

                He created us and gave us life. He has the right to set the standard; of course no one comes even close to this standard (i.e. perfection). You should be grateful He provided a way out (Jesus) so that we don’t have to live up to that standard. If He hadn’t done that, we would all be damned.

                Micah

            • the_ignored says:

              the ignored: “Don’t give up your faith, since it’s obviously the only things keeping you from becoming a criminal. Just don’t poison other people with your filth. We don’t need any more ticking time bombs thank you very much.”

              Again, your atheistic worldview is failing you so you need to borrow concepts that only comport with the Christian worldview.
              Ah, no. I don’t have to take a thing from your worldview. You people just take credit for everything, whether you can show it or not. So far you haven’t. You just make assertions after assertions.

              Here: Prove that it’s ONLY the xian worldview that says that killing is wrong (unless god orders it, of course!)

              Why not any other religion out there?

              All of your objections show that you do know the biblical God as you are constantly relying on laws that only He can provide a rational basis for.
              Huh? All that my objections do is show that you have a lousy, and inconsistent fictional role model. Only thing is: You use this fictional being as the sole basis for morality while dismissing any other reason.

              Your religion, with a holy book that makes that assertion that everyone “knows” that your god exists, has made you so arrogant that you don’t realize that other people can come up with different reasons for acting decent to each other.

              That arrogance is compounded with your asinine assertion that I somehow “know” that your god exists.

              Sorry, but no. What does exist though are his followers who try to use the political and educational system to force your views on the rest of us. If you just kept to yourselves, I would not care and I would not argue.

              • Micah says:

                Hi,

                >Again, your atheistic worldview is failing you so you need to borrow concepts that only comport with the Christian worldview.
                >Ah, no. I don’t have to take a thing from your worldview. You people just take credit for everything, whether you can show it or not. So far you haven’t. You just make assertions after assertions.

                No you are the one who is just making one arbitrary claim after the other. Anyone who can read and understands logic in the least can easily see this by reading the previous exchanges.

                >Here: Prove that it’s ONLY the xian worldview that says that killing is wrong (unless god orders it, of course!)
                Why not any other religion out there?

                This is a straw-man. We have never stated that the Christian worldview is the only one that says killing is wrong. What we really said was that the Bible provides the only rational justification for why killing is wrong.
                There is a difference and I am amazed that you still have not realized this.

                >All of your objections show that you do know the biblical God as you are constantly relying on laws that only He can provide a rational basis for.
                >Huh? All that my objections do is show that you have a lousy, and inconsistent fictional role model. Only thing is: You use this fictional being as the sole basis for morality while dismissing any other reason.

                We have dismissed your reasons because they have all been irrational, that is the point of debate right, to give logical reasons for your positions?

                >Your religion, with a holy book that makes that assertion that everyone “knows” that your god exists, has made you so arrogant that you don’t realize that other people can come up with different reasons for acting decent to each other.

                They can come up with different reasons sure, they just wont be rational reasons.

                >That arrogance is compounded with your asinine assertion that I somehow “know” that your god exists.

                What other conclusion can we come to when you keep demonstrating that truth? You constantly rely on logical laws and you appeal to an absolute morality. Neither of which can be rationally justified apart from the Biblical God.

                >Sorry, but no. What does exist though are his followers who try to use the political and educational system to force your views on the rest of us.

                That’s quite the generalization there. It’s also a double standard since evolution is taught as fact in public schools; most schools wont even allow students to critically analyze it. Talk about forcing views on other people.

                Micah

  20. Steve says:

    Hello Jason and everyone,
    I was perusing a forum where they were discussing evolution. I saw a brief interaction where a creationist accused an evolutionist of appealing to authority. The creationist gave an example of why it is a fallacy. His example was if he says his argument is true because all reputable schools believe it is true, then it’s an appeal to authority.
    (I understand the actual fallacy is called “faulty” appeal to authority and honestly I wasn’t sure what makes an appeal faulty)
    The evolutionist pointed out that the creationist misused the term because his appeal wasn’t faulty and said that the creationists example is wrong. He went on to explain that a faulty appeal would be appealing to a person who wasn’t an authority on the topic at issue. The evolutionist then gave an example if he referred to a physicist for a painful sciatica, that would be an appeal to authority since he is a physicist not a physician.
    I looked up the definition elsewhere and found that he was accurate.
    What are your thoughts regarding the faulty appeal to authority when it comes to the subject of evolution?

    • Steve says:

      I just remembered a section of Jason Lisle’s presentation on the Ultimate Proof of Creation (or one of the related sessions). He said something about appealing to an authority and said it was faulty if it is used in this manner:

      (I don’t remember word for word) – “I believe in evolution because scientists do.” The problem with the statement is that not ALL scientists believe in evolution.

      I would still like insight. 🙂

    • Josef says:

      Steve,

      I certainly agree that it is important to do our best to avoid logical fallacies when arguing. It’s difficult to make specific comments about the interaction between the creationist & evolutionist, since I have not seen the discussion. But I’ll share my thoughts anyway:

      There are many ways someone can use the argument from authority fallacy.

      Inappropriate authority: “Abiogenesis is a scientific impossibility. Just ask Dr. Lisle, he’s a scientist who is good at explaining why.” This would be a faulty appeal to authority. Dr. Lisle is brilliant, but the way he is used in this example makes it seem like I’d be basing a lot of faith in his knowledge on the topic when he his credentials aren’t relevant to this specific topic. Basically I’d be using him as an authority when he’d be an intelligent layman (yes, even scientists are considered laymen in the areas outside of their field).

      Another example of a faulty appeal to authority is, “Scientists believe that evolution is true and they are the ones who are the most knowledgeable about the topic.” This is a faulty appeal to authority because it assumes that all scientists are in agreement with evolution. In a case like this, it would be appropriate to counter by saying, “This is a faulty appeal to authority because it assumes that all scientists believe in evolution. Dr. Lisle and Dr. Georgia Purdom are examples of scientists who do not believe in evolution.” (note: this is where the No True Scotsman fallacy will usually be followed up by the evolutionists).

      Another faulty appeal to authority is when the evolutionist might appeal to someone who is an authority on the subject and believes something because that person believes in it. E.g. “Abiogenesis is true because Richard Dawkins says so.” Now, as a Ph.D. biologist, Richard Dawkins certainly would be someone who has credentials relevant to abiogenesis. However, even if abiogenesis were true, it would not be because Richard Dawkins believes it, as if the theory would be contingent on his beliefs.

      So an example that would not be considered a faulty appeal to authority would be this, “Evolution is true because it has a lot of facts to support it. And it is what the majority of scientists believe.” Whether or not evolution has a lot of facts to support it is certainly disputable, but it’s not a fallacy to say that many scientists believe it. Because 1. It’s not using the scientists as the reason evolution is true (i.e. evolution is true because many scientists believe it). 2. It’s not claiming all scientists believe in evolution, just that the majority do (and as it happens, this could be an appeal to majority fallacy) and 3. It’s not inappropriately appeal to someone who is irrelevant to the topic. E.g. “the big bang is true because there are a lot of facts to support it and it’s what the majority of biologists believe.”

      Anyway, I hope this helps.

      • Micah says:

        Great explanation Josef.

        Steve, in the example you gave, it is kind of hard to know if the evolutionist actually committed the fallacy or not without actually reading the exchange. That being said, appealing to the majority of schools or the fact that they are ‘reputable’, as evidence that your argument is sound definitely would be an appeal to majority/authority.

        The evolutionist doesn’t sound like he actually knows what the appeal to authority is. I say that because of his ‘explanation’ of it.

        The faulty appeal to authority happens like this: 1. I believe x.
        2. Dr. Lisle believes x. 3. Therefore x is true.

        Its a fallacy, because an argument needs to be evaluated on its own merit, not what a person, an authority or a majority believe about it. Almost everyone believes in the law of gravity, but that is not why the law of gravity is true. Its true because of the scientific evidence backing it.
        When the evolutionist appeals to the ‘majority’ of scientists and the ‘authority’ of schools, its a smokescreen to distract from the fact that evolution has very little scientific evidence backing it up.

        Thats my take on this anyways.

        Micah

        • Steve says:

          Thanks guys. I thought I wrote thank you yesterday but I guess I didn’t complete my thought and hit “post”!

          Thank you for the reminder. I have been involved in arguments where I used similar answers as you have done. I guess I just needed a little refresher.

          Still perusing, I have come across more fallacies. I am practicing identifying fallacious arguments without actually participating in the debate (for now).

          Is there a name for this fallacy in a particular argument (or is it even considered a fallacy)?

          Person 1 – “Here is evidence of a star being born” [presents a picture with “scientific” explanation]
          Person 2 – [points out that the explanation contains phrases such as “scientists think…” and “over millions of years”]
          Person 1 – “What more evidence do you want? Stars take a long time to form. What scientific evidence do YOU have?”

          In my opinion, I think this is called “shifting the burden of proof” or something of that nature. Does that sound right?

          That’s all for right now 🙂

          • Steve says:

            Ugh, left this out.

            The example I presented reminds of a similar one that Jason used about Gallileo proving that the moon was smooth.

            Gallileo – The moon is smooth
            People – no it is not.
            Gallileo – Here look in my telescope
            People – yes, we see the craters but there is an unseen layer that fills those craters making the moon smooth
            Gallileo – ah, well there is an unseen layer on top of THAT layer that is not smooth. 😛

            • Josef says:

              Steve,

              I don’t have much time right now, but yes person 1 is shifting the burden of proof. With the burden of proof fallacy, someone makes a claim and then tries to get his opponent to make the case for him. Sometimes it can actually be a little tough to spot and unfortunately, Christians use this fallacy a lot too. A common way you might see this fallacy used it, “The Bible is the word of God and no one has every proved it wrong.” The problem is that the person who argues this way gives no evidence for his position, but instead argues in such a way that it places the burden onto his opponent to provide evidence that the Bible is false, and if he can’t, then the person feels vindicated in his claim. Evolutionists also commit this when they say stuff like, “Evolution is true and so far no creationist has been able to prove it wrong”.

              That’s essentially what Person 1 has done. He attempts to provide evidence that turns out to be insufficient to back up his claims, so he shifts the burden onto person 2 to make his point for him.

              The Galileo example is a good example of the question-begging fallacy. The people merely assume that the earth is smooth. And when evidence is presented that it isn’t, they make up some ad hoc theory to save their conclusion. So essentially begging the question is when you assume your conclusion to be true.

              Person one has also assumed his conclusion by saying, “stars take millions of years to form”. Basically he’s never seen a star form because it takes “a long time”.

            • Josef says:

              Steve,

              Another point I forgot to mention is that sometimes there are multiple fallacies in an argument.

              For example, if an evolutionist were to ask Dr. Lisle, “Ok, if biblical creation is true, then how do you explain the billions of years for the age of the universe and earth?”

              This is an example of the complex question fallacy because it is actually more than one question. 1. Is the earth & universe billions of years old? 2. If it is that old, how do you explain it in the creationist model?

              It is also a begging the question fallacy because it merely assumes the truth of the evolutionist’s paradigm.

              • Lithp says:

                This isn’t true, Person 1 has met the rational burden of proof, Person 2’s doubts are simply unreasonable. Real scientists deal with statistics, which ALWAYS have a measure of doubt. If a self-proclaimed scientist says, “I have proven X to be absolutely true,” it’s a red flag, they’re probably a quack.

                • Josef says:

                  Perhaps I shouldn’t have done this, but I was operating under the assumption that Person 2 has sufficiently debunked Person 1’s claims. If he hasn’t, then you’re right, it wouldn’t be considered shifting the burden of proof.

                • Josef says:

                  Lithp: “ Real scientists deal with statistics, which ALWAYS have a measure of doubt. If a self-proclaimed scientist says, “I have proven X to be absolutely true,” it’s a red flag, they’re probably a quack.

                  Well then, secular scientists should never claim that it has been proven that the earth is older than 6,000 years old. Because as you said, any “scientist” who claims to have proven something to be absolutely true is a quack. So according to your standards, when a scientist claims that the earth is definitely older than 6,000 years old, he is making a claim that exceeds what he is capable of (according to you).

                  So are you going to hold to a double standard and only claim that it is the theistic scientists who are quacks or are you going to be fair and impartial and claim that even secular/evolutionary scientists are quacks?

                  • Lithp says:

                    I didn’t say that theist scientists are quacks, you assumed it. 😛

                    Secular scientists can be quacks. I can’t say, “all secular scientists are quacks” because that’s a hasty generalization.

                    In any case, every actual scientist I’ve been in contact with has stated that the evidence suggests that the world is 4.5 billion years old, & even if they used the word “prove,” they’ve always followed that up with the statement that, if new evidence came to light that the old theory was wrong, the old theory would be abandoned.

                    • Steve says:

                      I would be inclined to ask those scientists what is they evidence they are referring to. There is also evidence to suggest they have overshot the age of the earth.

                    • Josef says:

                      Lithp: “In any case, every actual scientist I’ve been in contact with has stated that the evidence suggests that the world is 4.5 billion years old

                      Well either you’ve never been in contact with scientists who accept biblical creation (and if you’re here on Dr. Lisle’s blog, then I find this pretty hard to believe) or you’re committing the No True Scotsman Fallacy, as if scientists who accept the biblical account of history aren’t somehow “actual” scientists.

                      Also, there are plenty of evidences that suggest that the earth is much younger than the 4.6 billion year estimate: C14 found in diamonds that supposedly billions of years old or the rate at which the earth’s magnetic field decays puts an upper limit of 10,000 years for the earth.

                      Secular scientists have to come up with all sorts of rescue devices to avoid the biblical time scale.

          • Brian Forbes says:

            You know, the constant appeal to fallacies is a kind of appeal to authority fallacy. It’s not true or untrue because someone identified the particular line of thinking as fallacious, or even that he was able to demonstrate that the line of reasoning was parallel to another faulty line of reasoning. It’s false because it’s false, independent of how we think about it. Memorizing of fallacies is really just an emotional appeal to the faith of the person you’re trying to reason with. They believe Wikipedia or Dictionary.com or whatever when they talk about logic, and because they believe those authorities, they accept that their own reason or your reason is faulty.

            It always comes back to faith.

            And if someone says it’s valid to claim that an expert in a field is ok to appeal to, you can rightly say, “Yes, you may appeal to them on faith.” Because you have to trust all sorts of things before attaining confidence, i.e. Dr. Lisle probably has a PhD in astronomy, but I wasn’t there when he got it, I wasn’t there when he studied, I don’t have a clue what he’s talking about when he’s arguing ASC, if he’s lying, if he’s currently awake enough to reason or remember, etc., etc. So I take his opinions on faith. Others take his opinion on faith. Some deny his opinions on faith in others.

            It always comes back to faith.

            I have a book, and one of the Amazon reviewers said that you should never cite Wikipedia, ever! He was so opposed to it, he couldn’t see the value of citing it for the reasons I did. I pointed to a long list of abstract arguments for a particular issue – the best on the web. (I think it was a list of examples of convergent evolution.) I also cited an article about a popular tourist destination. So we naturally went to academic sources that tell us what we’re allowed to cite if we’re going to be accepted by the gatekeepers of academia. And I found some expert that said I could use Wikipedia for the reasons I gave, and he gave some expert that said it wasn’t ok. I bet we both could have found some guy somewhere who says it’s ok to cite children’s essays in academic works. Would it make the true more true, or the false more false? It reminds me of a fashion guru telling everyone that JC Penny is never a good source for fashion. Just a bunch of opinions about popular culture…. And it works! People are convinced by this junk.

            You have to find out what the fashion trends are for the person you’re arguing with. You have to hear their prejudices and study their culture. Big ol’ fat earrings may be all the rage at a punk concert, but they’re downright offensive in a corporate office. Appeal to authority might work in a culture founded in respect and authority. A classroom setting with a well liked teacher, for example.

            It all comes back to faith.

            Don’t get me wrong, logical formulas work great on logical people, but nobody, not even Dr. Lisle is perfectly logical. Even he takes things on faith sometimes. And with anything in logic, you always have to start with axioms (i.e. the permissible use of an appeal to authority). And where you come down on these axioms always comes back to faith.

            • Josef says:

              Brian, unfortunately you don’t seem to understand that there is a difference between faith that is justified and blind, irrational faith. Yes, a lot of things come down to faith. But blind faith is irrational while justified faith is rational.

              • Brian Forbes says:

                Your observation (accusation?) that I don’t understand the difference between justified faith and blind faith is based in faith. I, on the other hand, feel justified in believing that I do know the difference. I happen to have more evidence to support my belief than you have to support yours. Is my goal to convince you that I know the difference? Not right now, it’s not. Maybe some other time. I don’t care that much what you think of me. My argument stands regardless of what you think of me.

                But the point behind your argument is true. It might have been better to add it as an addendum to my statements. I agree that some faith is well attested to, and other faith has very little justification. There are varying degrees to our faith. Elisha could see both armies in 2 Ki. 6, but to the servant, who had all the scientific evidence, Elisha might have seemed like a fool. However well attested to your theories might seem at the time, all it takes is a little illumination in the darkness of your mind, and your whole world gets flipped around.

                That’s why I value a simple faith in God far more than any logical inference without faith in God. Once you know God is real from personal experience (that comes out of an initial faith, I might add), all the 2 Peter 3 style mocking in the world won’t wreck your confidence.

Leave a Reply

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