Posted on 11/06/2015 7:01:19 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
You are asserting that there is no God. That is truly an extraordinary claim (a universal negative) which demands extraordinary proof.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof
But if this harmonization was too difficult, they might have thought theirs was the genuine One, and the other was --- well, "other," a rival. Or a hegemonic political arrangement might have put all the local "One-Gods" together into a pantheon, for the sake of a hoped-for multi-culti civic harmony. But that would not satisfy any serious monotheist.
I always thought that the Algonquin/Ojibwa Gitche Manitou was the same as the Judeo-Christian One God. Creator of All.
I like Jim Warner Wallace a lot. And the evidence is enough, I think, to command the serious respect of any impartial jury.
His is a remarkable apologetics. As a cold-case detective, he fully understands the power of circumstantial evidence.
Consider this, to remove any ‘creator’ from our very existence including the beginning of our universe is to remove any ‘thought or intelligence’ from the equation. By definition, you are ultimately left with an existence from stupidity.
…that if we would maintain the value of our highest beliefs and emotions, we must find for them a congruous origin. Beauty must be more than accident. The source of morality must be moral. The source of knowledge must be rational.
- Sir Arthur Balfour
…atheism isn't exempt from analysis or critique of its real world consequences. Atheism is a metaphysical stance -- there are no gods and no God, there is no intrinsic purpose to existence, there is no natural moral law, there is no accountability in an afterlife. Those are quite explicit and consequential assertions, just as the negation of those assertions -- that there is a God, that there is a purpose to existence... -- is an explicit and consequential assertion. Atheism lacks liturgy. It does not lack beliefs and consequences. It lacks belief in God; it does not lack belief in the intrinsic consequences of God's non-existence. As Nietzsche emphatically noted, if God is dead, everything changes....atheism is to sin as alcoholism is to angst. Stupor-- metaphysical or medicinal-- is a denial of reality and a denial of consequences, which feels good for an evening or a weekend.
- Michael Egnor
Whatever.
Amen. Great assessment!
Do you believe human conscience and consciousness ultimately came from mindlessness?
It does feel like a "Tower of Babel" moment in history, where the secularists want to assault heaven and tear down God. We know how that ended...
I agree that the longer science deals with origin studies (universe, life, etc.) the more it aligns nicely with the book of Genesis. However, where you and I may see organized complexity with a master plan, other people who are students of science reject that view and will argue unintended consequence and randomness. The point I would like to emphasize is that using science to confirm belief in an area that cannot be measured (i.e. the existence of God) is simply a waste of time by both sides. In a way, we are forced to place our faith in something based on how we view what science provides as compelling evidence.
While I'm sensitive to following God's will in using my time, I'm aware that the Bible itself refutes your claim, if I'm understanding you correctly. For example, broadly speaking, Romans 1:19-20:
what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
The Bible is not only chock-full of claims that are scientifically testable but also of commands to take the time to engage, with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). If a lack of discernible results ensues, it is indicative not of wasted time but only that the Holy Spirit has not yet broken through, which does not absolve the responsible believer from continuing to witness using the best available evidence, including from science.
By far the finest organization of which I'm aware for reconciling the Christian faith and science is Reasons to Believe, which I heartily commend to your attention.
I respect your perspective, I merely am pointing out that a militant atheist would not be persuaded by your argument and that if science is going to be used as a litmus test, neither side can claim that a repeatable scientific method can achieve their end objective of proof or disproof.
But that is okay, theology and science can coexist and both sides can continue the debate. The militant atheist fails to realize this which is why this article is pointing out their blind spot.
Many, many militant atheists have indeed been persuaded by these very same arguments, and many more will continue to be. Moreover, Drs. Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana have developed a Testable Creation Model, the "repeatable scientific method" you mentioned, available at Reasons.org and in several of their books, which is accomplishing that very thing.
The fact that most atheists do continue resisting is proof only that the majority of people will ultimately reject God and will choose Hell ("For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Matthew 7:13-14), not proof that we should give up efforts to persuade. As I indicated, it is the Holy Spirit who does the actual persuading; sometimes He works partially through us, at times using scientific arguments and sometimes other arguments.
God derived the ultimate function that we discovered as mathematics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.