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?
How do we know that any of history from that era isn't fiction for that matter?
I would like to live in the country again where the wild animals can be seen in their native habitat. I grew up in the country just outside the city limits of a small MS town. I might have complained about doing chores but we got to see nature at its best. I miss those days when we would check the garden to see the first tomatoes, potatoes, green beans, peas, etc. Plus seeing all of the small fruit developing. We could not wait until the plums got ripe but we ate them green with a little, ok, a lot of salt. Still one of my favorite foods.
My trees were loaded last year when a freeze got them all. Got my figs, too.
I have watched intervention shows where the family or friends are trying to get people the help they need but they seem to like living the ugly side of life. I can not understand why they make the choices they do.
I do not like alcoholic drinks. I was talking with my daughter about wine and how I simply did not like the taste of it. She said it was an acquired taste. Well, excuse me, but why would I want to drink something that you have to get an acquired taste for? Give me southern iced tea, juice, orange or lemonade or just plain water with a lemon slice in it.
So, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Socrates and the designers and builders of the pyramids had not a whit, not even the beginning, of any wisdom or knowledge?
Hm?
Amen. You said it all.
All proof requires faith as any basic philosophy instruction will show is incontrovertible.
Don't know, I've got three, I think King James Version? and one called NIV?
Ask Him for understanding.
Been asking for over twenty years, he hasn't got back to me yet though. (not joking)
All of my evangelical friends kept telling me that Huckabee was going to "take off" among the general population. They kept saying that it was only a matter of time before non-evangelicals flocked to him. They kept insisting that he was the next POTUS. None of that ever happened. They just couldn't understand that the vast majority of the populace simply doesn't think like them. Sort of like the people who think a nationwide "revival" is always around the next corner, when in reality, religion in America will probably go the way of European Christendom.
“We do all have the same evidence”
I would have to firmly disagree with that.
Variation within species is recognized by creationists. If it wasn’t there, everything would be a virtual clone of its parents. It allows for survivability when conditions change. It allows for stability and predictability without boredom and stagnation.
The problem is the difference in interpretation of that fact.
Evolutionists see it as evidence to support the ToE which claims that species can evolve into totally different species.
Creationists see it as part of the infinite variety God programmed into each kind of animal for the reasons mentioned above.
The creationist position is to wallow in willful ignorance. Show some intellectual content if you expect to receive any.
There are 3 major world paradigms....1...Theism (God made all)...2...Pantheism...(god is all)...3...Atheism...(no god at all).
When dealing with creation the first question to be asked is, "Did the universe have a beginning?" Christians, Muslimsm, and Jews say yes, and Hindus', New Agers, Buddists, Mormons say no. One or the other is correct. In evaluating this question one should put aside intellectulal objections, emotional objections, volitional objections and look at the facts as we understand them today. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly confirms that the universe exploded into being out of nothing. Either someone created something out of nothing (Christian view) or no one creeated something out of nothing (atheists view). Which of these position require more faith? The reason some refuse to believe this obvious truth is because belief requires assent not only of the mind but also of the will. Many honest nonChristians have more of a volitional resistance to the Christian view. In other words they have the evidence, they simply do not want to believe.
C.S.Lewis once famously revealed the absurdity of expecting virtue from people who are taught that no virtue exists:"In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprize. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the gelding be fruitful." The truth of the matter is this: false ideas about truth lead to false ideas about life. So...can the truth be known? Discovering the truth begins with the self evident laws of logic called first principles. They are called first principles because they have nothing behind them. They are not proved by other principles. They are an inherent reality.
An irritating fact developed when in 1916 Albert Einsteine developed the theory of General Relativity. But he volitionally developed a corolary...a universal constant (which was not true, but to which he adhered for many years for the sole reason he did not like the implications of the theory...he divided his theory by zero....knowing that this was error. He adhered to it until a cosmologist, Arthur Eddington, conducted an experiment during a solar eclipes which confirmed that the General Relativity was true...the universe was expanding,..not static. If one takes a video real of the universe expanding and runs it backward, it will rewind to...Nothing. Einstein famously said, "Philosophically, the ntion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me....I should like to find a genuine loophole." See, volitional blindess. Meanwhile Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter discovered independently that the universe was expanding. In 1927 astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered the expanding universe by looking through the telescope. Looking through the 100 inch telescope at California's Mount Wilson Observatory he saw the "red shift" of light from every observable galaxy, which meant that those galaxies were moving away from us....thus confirming what Einstein had theorized. In 1929 Einstein pilgrimaged to Mount Wilson to see it for himself. He did. He stated that his 'cosmological constant', dividing by 0, was crushed beneath the weight of emperic and observable observation and was the "greatest blunder of his life".
The cosmological argument proving a beginning was the beginning of the end for the atheist. In accordance with the cosmological argument, and in accordance with the Law of Causality, the universe had a beginning. The arguement goes like this: 1.Everything that had a beginnging had a cause. 2. The universe had a beginning. #. Therefore, the universe had a cause. To deny the Law of Causality is to deny rationality. The very process of rational thinking requires us to put together thoughts (the causes) that result in conclusions (the effects). So, if someone doesn't believe in the Law of Causality, simply ask that person, "What caused you to come to that conclusion?"
Since the Law of Causality is well established and undeniable, premise 1 is true. What about number 2. Dis the universe have a beginning. Prior to Einstein it was not provable by science. Now the General Theory of Relativity says yes. Observations by Hubbel says yes. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, a study of matter and energy, says the universe is running down like a clock. With each passing moment the amount of usable energy is diminishing. Now if the universe has always been, then surely there has been enough time for entropy to maximize...but here we are. There are those who will refer you to esoteric physics to gain advantage, but like Sir Arthur Eddington said, "When one tries to dismiss the Laws of Physics, especially the second, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
The universe is expanding....not into 'empty space-but space itself is expanding-there was no space before the Big Bang. It did not emerge from existing material. Chronologically there was no 'before' before the beginning. Time, space, and matter came into existence at the Big BAng. Therefore, the question which needs to be asked of atheists is, "If there is not God, why is there no God?"
Next, we examine the work of 2 scientists who accidentally discovered in 1965 while working for Bell Labortories, there seemed to be radiation coming from everywhere. Intially they thought pigeon droppings had gotten on some wires, but they meticulously removed that and the observations were the same. This was Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson and their discovery of this pigeon dropping effect resulted in the Nobel Prize. Technically known as the cosmic background radiation, this is the afterglow of an initial huge explosion. Now as early as 1948 three scientists predicted that this radiation would be out there if a Big Bang had occurred. Penzias and Wilson stumbled on to it. Robert Jastrow, astronomer said, "No explaination other than the Big Bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher which convinced the last Doubting Thomas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the steady-state theory have tried desperately to find an alternative explanation but they have failed."
And finally, COBE, the $200,000,000 satellite discovered the "Ripples", long predicted if there was a Big BANG. In 1989 COBE was launced and began sending back photos. The project leader at NASA, Geoge Smoot, announced COBE's findings. He said, "If you are religious, it's like looking at God." University of Chicago's astrophysist Michael Turner, said The significance of this discovery cannot be overstated. They have found the Holy Grail of Cosmology". Stephen Hawking agreed as said it was probably the most improtant scientific discovery of all time. What did COBE find? It found not only ripples, but scientists were amazed at their precision. The ripples show the explosion and expansion of the universe was specifically 'tweaked' to cause just enough matter to congregate to allow galaxy formation, but not enought to cause the universe to collapse. Smootcalled this matter the 'seeds' of the galxies as they exist today. (These pictures can be seen o COBE's website and are the largest structurees ever detected with the largest extending one-third across the known universe. That is 10 billion light years or 60 billion trillion (60 followed by 21 zeroes) miles.
If there is no God, Why is there no God rather than nothing?
The atheist will invarably ask, regarding first cause...'Well, then, what caused God?' The answer is what the Bible says. He is not caused. He is spirit. He is not part of this universe, but is separate and distinct from the universe, and therefore not subject to the laws of order He imposed upon His universe. He is the Alpha and Omege...from everlasting to everlasting. Beside Him there is no other. The only other explaination is that "everything that came to be, came from nothing". That is where science begins to the atheist.
I hope this very cursory explaination helps you to explain to those who refuse to follow step by step to the beginning....In the beginning, God...........
I did not like him but not because of his religion. I did not like his other beliefs. You can not say that about my church which is growing by leaps and bounds. It is a conservative Southern Baptist Church.
As usual, this is a fun debate, but won’t change anything. Nite all, have to get up at 4:30.
“Creationists just make stuff up. That’s why they’re called creationists.”
Every one makes stuff up. Including scientists.
They call it Theory, when they make stuff up.
That’s why it’s called the Theory of Evolution.
If it was a proven fact, it wouldn’t be called a Theory.
In all likelihood, neither the scientists nor creationists are ‘correct’ about the matter.
Sure. They did that and archaeoraptor to prove that the ToE was true beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Oops, wait a minute...
I guess creationists aren't the only ones who make things up, now are they?
He never told us. Either; no one, it doesn’t matter, or even if He told us, we wouldn’t understand.
The bible isn’t a book about somebody but The Word IS Somebody - Jesus, The Living Word. There is power behind the Words.
When one accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior and turn his/her broken down life over to Christ, they then live their life through Him since The Holy Spirit will then live within them. His Beauty for their ashes. He fails no one if they come with a humble spirit knowing they need a Savior. And we all do!
He gives us good things in trade for the mess of our lives, if we’re willing.
You take your kids there so they can learn the "truth" and people will point at them and laugh for believing that we rode dinosaurs:
By time Ham has explained their eyes have glazed over and they are ready to accept anything just to get him to stop talking.
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.