Posted on 02/24/2008 4:18:12 PM PST by no nau
Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:
‘I’ve been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don’t believe the Bible and aren’t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there’s a God who created, and then they’ll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they’ll start to listen to me?’
Briefly, my response is as follows.
Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events. Past and present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.
However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.
Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.
On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
That’s why the argument often turns into something like:
‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’
‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’
‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’
‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.
These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.
It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.
I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.
It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.
However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.
As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’
However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.
What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result. Debate terms
If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:
1. ‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see Naturalism, logic and reality.
2. Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).
A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).
Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history! Ultimately, God’s Word convicts
1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ‘For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’
Also, Isaiah 55:11: ‘So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.’
Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts. Practical application
When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:
‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’
One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death.
Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:
‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’
In arguing this way, a Christian is:
1. Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.
2. Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1
3. Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).
4. Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).
5. Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul.
Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about. Naturalism, logic and reality
Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:
1. A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’
The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.
2. On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.
This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?
Some “science” is based on evidence, some is just accepted in faith.
You would think wrong. Evolution teaches us many things but the location of fossils is a new one on me.
If predicting things is unscientific, then you might as well throw most of science out now.
Science forms hypothesis based on what it has uncovered. It does not 'predict' ala Nostradamus.
Why is it impossible to prove a negative?
Isn’t that like saying “There is no such thing as a proof of a negative?”
See?
Actually there is no such thing as ‘proof’ of anything. Proof happens in a context where the rules and presuppositions are agreed upon. And those rules and presuppositions themselves can never be proved.
http://www.ovimagazine.com/art/2607
Global warming is “science” ... yet it is based on faith.
Christianity can live within the realm of “proof”, at least to the same extent that any modern scientific theory about where we came from like evolution does, quite easily.
Apply the same burden of proof to Christianity as you do to Evolution, and Christianity can pass. Apply the same burden of proof to Evolution as you do to Christianity, and Evolution fails.
If I could find the posts, I certainly would put them up, but that has come from your camp.
It was addressed when the topic of what kind of predictions the ToE could make. The discussion was that the ToE could not predict what the next step in the evolution of any species would be and then the example of where to look for fossils was trotted out.
It's not about *can't* believe, but *won't* believe.
Luke 16:27-31 "He [the rich man in hell] answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
What's your criteria for picking and choosing which "truth" is merely non-binding "regulatory law" and which "truth" is binding "moral law"? After all, God said "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments and shall not commit any of these abominations." Lev. 18:26.
....
Your mistake is using a broad brush to descibe people that hold no such views- there are many many catholics that do not beleive in Macroeovlution- just because some pontiff somewhere has abaondoned God and logical science to beleive a lie and declare that lie alright to beleive in does not mean every branch of catholicism believes that way.
Obviously the Catholic church itself cannot agree on the meaning of Genesis. So how is my description wrong, that there are so many diverse religions across the planet that don't agree with each other, when a hierarchical denomination like the Catholic Church can't even agree with itself?
By the way, the pontiff that explicitly accepts evolution was John Paul II, and I believe the current Pope has no issues with it either.
All of this merely proves my point, that there cannot be a an "all powerful" God, if He can't consistently communicate some basic facts to humans. Along with the fact that people across the planet accept a wild variety of faiths, so quite obviously the only common denominator is that humans believe stuff with zero factual basis to do so.
How is it you know that your faith is correct, and other faiths are wrong?
How are you so lucky to know the one true faith, and others so unlucky?
I submit that you believe what you believe because someone told you to believe it, and those around you accept it, and so you do as well. That's why communities tend to share the same faith. You don't see a mother who is Catholic, a father who is Muslim, a brother who is Shinto, a neighbor who is animist.
You believe what you believe because the people around you in your community and church believe it too, and for no other reason than that.
If someone asked you to believe a rock was a god, would you refuse to believe it because you *can't* believe, or *won't* believe?
As for myself, I could try as hard as I might, but I could never believe a rock was a god. I can't believe your God either. No difference.
It would be very comforting to know deep in my soul that I was going to heaven when I die. I really *want* to believe that such a miracle would occur. But I cannot make myself believe it no matter how hard I try, because I understand how human faith operates, and that yours is no different than hundreds of other false faiths across the planet.
Barack Obama promises Democrats "hope", and they swoon and follow the new messiah. Your faith is no different. Belief in empty promises, because believing feels good. Obama is simply the new messiah, while yours is very old and the truth of his humanity is lost in the mists of time. No other difference.
Get a job.
I have one watching your spelling and the work is great!!!
[[If there is a supreme being you have no idea what so ever what he or it is like —except what YOU WANT it to be]]
No bob- you cut me a break- We do have an idea of what God is like because we have His infallible word describing exactly what He is like, and His omniscience demands justice- We ALSO know that the moral code is a universal moral code, and we know that morality demands justice- we MUST judge evil because evil affects everyone negatively if left unjudged. God’s Holiness demands that evil be judged- His is hte utmost absolute judgement, and His existence is the highest form of justice which demands the highest form of honor. I suggest you read a book by an old writer named Pink on the Soveriegnty of God to understand just how Just God is in His righteous judgement- but I wanr you- Your vision of what God must be like will be severely challenged- the God you envision doesn’t exist-
[[If someone asked you to believe a rock was a god, would you refuse to believe it because you *can’t* believe, or *won’t* believe?]]
No- you put it to hte test- You see if the rock has a bible which it gave to men, you see if the rock prophesied, and if so, how many of htose prophesies actually came 100% true and weren’t just some lame guesses based on logical predictions, but were infact actual true prophesies that no mere man could have possibly guessed could have happened 1000’s of years into the future- you would see if the rock could answer prayer, you would see if the rock gave promisses and would keep them when you take hte leap of faith and finally put your trust in it- I would ask if there were people in the past whjo actually wintessed miracles doen by hte rock- and not just the converts of hte rocks testifying, but also unbelievers who testified to hte miracles- if so- then by golly ya gotr yerself quite the rock.
Sorry- but Our God does all those htings and much more- a simple man assigned god isn’t capable of any of that.
[[As for myself, I could try as hard as I might, but I could never believe a rock was a god. I can’t believe your God either. No difference]]
There’s a big difference-
[[Barack Obama promises Democrats “hope”, and they swoon and follow the new messiah. Your faith is no different.]]
Oh yes there is a diff. Barack can’t deliver- God can- He has told you He can, and He has proven He can to many many people- Barack hasn’t- nor can He. Barack’s hope is futile- God’s hope can save fro m eternal damnation, and His Hope never let’s down as He is true to His word and not a compulsive liar like Barack is.
To some degree. But it takes a level of faith to believe in the theories of evolution - and it is a huge leap of faith to accept science's origin theories.
To some degree. But it takes a level of faith to believe in the theories of evolution - and it is a huge leap of faith to accept science's origin theories.
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.