betty boop, marron, Texas Songwriter, P-Marlowe, spirited irish and others have brought many wonderful insights to the debate over the years. And I am honored to be joined with them in the great debate. Their arguments are eloquent, informed, piercing, logical, faithful.
But I am a Christian, plain and simple.
So my first contribution is usually what I posted earlier because I have observed that the presupposition most atheist/agnostic seek to achieve in their arguments is their belief that God is a hypothesis. And from there, they usually admit only whatever evidence is acceptable to a metaphysical naturalist with the ultimate goal being to convince a Christian that God is a delusion.
I give no ground whatsoever to atheists or agnostics' presupposition by simply declaring my testimony: God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His Name is I AM. I've known Him for a half century and counting.
The claim that One I have known so long and so well is a hypothesis is absurd on the face. So I let them know, the conversation will not "go there."
Thereafter, I simply convey the words of God which speak for themselves. The power is in His words, not mine.
Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. - Matthew 13:9
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. – I Cor 2:14
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63
So despite your objections, I shall continue to "cut and paste" as appropriate.
God's Name is I AM.
I have noticed that "modus operandi" too, dearest sister in Christ. Yet I declare that the reality of God is not contingent on His "acceptability" according to metaphysical naturalist categories. God simply can't be "reduced" to such criteria. This is the point that metaphysical naturalists — i.e., those of agnostic/atheist bent — absolutely refuse to grasp.
To me, if there is to be a "proof" of the existence of God, it can only come from the actual experiences of individuals in communion with Him. Thus when you say —
God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His Name is I AM. I've known Him for a half century and counting.— I take this testimony and witness as "best evidence."
Thank you so very much for your beautiful essay/post, and your kind words of support!
Sorry.
No food fight for me!
I give no ground whatsoever to atheists or agnostics' presupposition by simply declaring my testimony: God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His Name is I AM. I've known Him for a half century and counting.
The claim that One I have known so long and so well is a hypothesis is absurd on the face. So I let them know, the conversation will not "go there."
Thereafter, I simply convey the words of God which speak for themselves. The power is in His words, not mine.
If my correspondent has "ears to hear" he will. And if he doesn't, he won't believe anyway.
AMEN!!!
Even the atheist approaches the discussion from his own set of presuppositions whether he realizes that or not.
And those presuppositions must include some ultimate, absolute, invariant law of logic and morality which they are unable to articulate except for God.
But that was too easy. Who came up with the definition? The definition of faith as a leap beyond reason makes sense in terms of the atheist worldview because in that view an Absolute Mind is denied, making the world ultimately non-rational. The ultimate mind in the universe is the finite human mind (or maybe a finite alien mind); thus anything beyond the finite human mind is beyond reason. This means that the argument above for atheism begs the question of atheism. When Freud characterizes religion as a leap beyond reason, he is describing the irrationalism that is inherent in the atheist worldview because irrationalism is ultimate in the atheist worldview. Faith that is a leap beyond reason is atheist spirituality, not Christian spirituality! Freud assumes the materialistic evolutionary worldview when he describes primitive human consciousness emerging through purely non-conscious, non-rational, materialistic evolutionary forces. He assumes rather than proves that human minds thinking about God and the forces beyond their control are thinking about the non-rational realm from which their minds emerged, and thus are only self-delusionally God-dependant. The Christian faith in things beyond human reason is not an appeal to the non-rational but to the absolutely rational. The Christian trusts in God, who is absolutely rational and is sovereign over all that exists. Humans are created in the image of God; thus they originally exist in personal relationship with God, not inventing the idea of God to make up for their ignorance. Christianity represents the dominion of the Logos (John 1:1), the Word, the Reason. With this understanding, the tables are turned on the atheist. The debate between atheism versus Christianity is not a matter of reason versus faith. As Cornelius Van Til points out in the quote above, the debate is between a worldview in which the non-rational is ultimate (atheism) and a worldview in which the rational is ultimate (Christianity). There is a formal similarity between the two worldviews. Both include an appeal to faith, mystery and spirituality; but these similar words hide a substantial difference between the two—that the atheist is expressing belief in an ultimately non-rational universe when he uses these words, and the Christian is expressing belief in an ultimately rational universe. With the atheist view that the finite mind of man is the ultimate mind in the universe, the universe becomes philosophically anthropocentric (and geocentric, since humans live on earth). As Copernicus overturned the geocentric view with the heliocentric view, Van Til has overturned the atheist view that man's mind is autonomous with the view that God's mind is autonomous. The universe is theocentric rather than anthropocentric. ""Agnosticism is epistemologically self-contradictory on its own assumptions because its claim to make no assertion about ultimate reality rests upon a most comprehensive assertion about ultimate reality." -- Cornelius Van Til
(because I like Van Til and I really like visual aids)...Framed in such a manner, the issue of the truth of Christianity versus atheism is a simple one. Atheism is the rational belief and Christianity is devoid of rationality, because reason has been defined to exclude faith. End of discussion.
Responding to a dozen different posters, even just reading their posts can take a whole day, and most of them are not really prone to Laconic brevity. So, my apologies for getting back to you with considerable delay.
I do know that you and betty boop are FR's veterans who "champion atheistic and agnostic arguments" and that you two have written a book about it.
I am not sure exactly why you mention this, or what that is supposed to mean, except that you have been on the FR a long time, not that these forums necessarily change anything. I wonder what your counterparts think about your book, but if it is supposed to be a self-congratulatory testament to one's free time and effort then I am sure it is a prized possession in your library.
betty boop, marron, Texas Songwriter, P-Marlowe, spirited irish and others have brought many wonderful insights to the debate over the years. And I am honored to be joined with them in the great debate. Their arguments are eloquent, informed, piercing, logical, faithful.
Humility never struck me as a particular characteristic of people who call themselves "Christians," so self-congratulatory pats on the back are not surprising, and never lacking, it seems, in (self)flattery. Some of them are, it seems, particularly good at it.
Now, in adiditon to your credits you also write: I have observed that the presupposition most atheist/agnostic seek to achieve in their arguments is their belief that God is a hypothesis
Treating something as a hypothesis is not a "belief," AG. It is an approach to a question with conceivable but uncertain outcomes.
And from there, they usually admit only whatever evidence is acceptable to a metaphysical naturalist with the ultimate goal being to convince a Christian that God is a delusion
No doubt, there are zealots on both sides of the religious divie who seem to share an intence intolerance of anything other than their own perceived truth, and apparently even a wish for the elimination of all dissenting opinions. It volumes of their character and the nature of humanity in general, than of atheists in particular.
I give no ground whatsoever to atheists or agnostics' presupposition by simply declaring my testimony: God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His Name is I AM. I've known Him for a half century and counting.
You, and your personal and anecdotal experience, are not a proof of God's existence, AG.
The claim that One I have known so long and so well is a hypothesis is absurd on the face.
On what "face?" That something is a hypothesis is in large part dependent on the level and type of proof one is interested in. Again, your argument appears to be that your subjective experience must be true, and that somehow 'proves' to you that God (whom you can't even define) is not a hypothetical concept. We have been through this solipsistic argument before.
Thereafter, I simply convey the words of God which speak for themselves.
They are words of God to you because you are willing to believe they are. That doesn't mean they are. To the Jews, the NT words which you believe are God's words, are no different than names in a telephone directory because they refuse to believe them. The Muslims, likewise, choose to believe in the Koran as the word of God, but you and the Jews don't.
Just because one group decides what consititutes the words of God doesn't mean they are. We have been through this obvious and self-evident argument and yet it seems to have no effect, which doesn't surprise me given the mindset that uses the subjective personal experience as the ultimate litmus test of what is true and what is not.
If my correspondent has "ears to hear" he will. And if he doesn't, he won't believe anyway
That is sophism based on nothing concrete; it can be applied to any argument because that way you don't have to prove anything.
Even when I am convinced the words of God will not register with my correspondent, I nevertheless must convey them and my testimony for the sake of my brothers and sisters in Christ who are engaged in the great debate. After all, they may find something useful in their own testimony.
But of course you do, which means you are not really debating with the correspondent, but sharing self-congratulatory views with the those who will approve.
If you can't defend your beliefs with your own words, why do you bother to even engage? Just curious.