Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Atheists. Please Get The Argument Right

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Atheists. Please Get The Argument Right

    Is anyone benefitted by a straw man?

    The link can be found here.

    ----

    What happens when you misrepresent an argument? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    I had an atheist get in touch with a ministry I work for and the conversation was cordial enough. Anyway, he recommended I come to his blog and subscribe and give my thoughts since they wanted to see intelligent theists. I subscribed and yesterday responded to something about blind faith including the Richard Dawkins idea that faith is believing something without evidence.

    In the comments section, somehow it came to the cosmological argument, which I had not advanced, and the pointing out of how silly it was. After all, it's silly to say that everything that exists has a cause. Why is it that God is the exception? The blog owner and another atheist said this and a third showed up to celebrate what a great response it was.

    Yes. Absolutely wonderful.

    Except, you know, that's not what the argument is.

    I know of no serious defender of the cosmological argument who is a scholar of the field and/or teaches at an institution of higher learning who advances this argument. None of them say "Everything has a cause." The argument traditionally given is "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

    To say something like this would be like me going to a group I was giving an apologetics lecture to and saying, "Do you want to know how stupid evolution is? Let me give you an example. Evolutionists believe that a fish crawled out of the sea and turned into a puppy dog and that puppy dog gave birth to a lion who gave birth to a human being. Isn't that stupid?"

    It definitely is. The problem is that evolutionists do not present arguments like this. This is not the way evolution is formulated. Keep in mind that this does not mean evolution is true nor does it mean that evolution is false. The atheists misrepresented the Kalam, but that does not mean that the Kalam is an airtight argument that works. The Kalam must still stand on its own two feet.

    What it does mean is when dealing with any argument, one must deal with the argument as it is and not as one would like to have it. Do the latter and you can dispatch with any argument. Just turn it into something completely ridiculous and refute that and your work is done.

    It's also quite ironic to have atheists talking about blind faith and yet believing simply whatever is read in a book or on a web site by an atheist without looking to see if the argument is right. Were any theistic philosophers consulted to see if they used this argument? You know the answer to that as well as I do.

    This has been going after atheists, but keep in mind this is entirely unacceptable for Christians. We are people who do want to take down our opponents' arguments and we should, but let's make sure we are taking down their arguments. There is no victory in making a fake argument and it's dishonest and an insult to the cause of Christ.*

    And to atheist readers of this, if you have done this, stop it. Deal with the real argument. When I see the fake argument put forward, I just conclude that you're an atheist who doesn't know what he's talking about.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

  • #2
    A modern example of "blind" faith is the believing Jupiter has 67 known moons. How many of us has seen and understood the data of the evidence? Most who have seen the evidence of Jupiter's moons have only seen the 4 moons.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      A modern example of "blind" faith is the believing Jupiter has 67 known moons. How many of us has seen and understood the data of the evidence? Most who have seen the evidence of Jupiter's moons have only seen the 4 moons.
      I don't understand what you're trying to get at here.
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        I don't understand what you're trying to get at here.
        I think he's saying most people just trust scientists with blind faith as to what is out there, without checking it for themselves.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
          I think he's saying most people just trust scientists with blind faith as to what is out there, without checking it for themselves.
          His example is based on hard evidence, however; that's hardly blind faith.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
            I think he's saying most people just trust scientists with blind faith as to what is out there, without checking it for themselves.
            There is just some evidence that we who do not have access to the data and must accept what the witness, that is, what the scientist says it means. We are ourselves blind to the evidence, not having our own experience with said evidence.
            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              His example is based on hard evidence, however; that's hardly blind faith.
              I didn't say his example was good, just what I think he was trying to say.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                I didn't say his example was good, just what I think he was trying to say.
                All knowledge is a matter of faith. Where the Apostle Paul quips, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God," He cites natural revelation Psalm 19:. (Romans 10:17-18) Which is the basis of all science.
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                  Is anyone benefitted by a straw man?

                  The link can be found here.

                  ----

                  What happens when you misrepresent an argument? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

                  I had an atheist get in touch with a ministry I work for and the conversation was cordial enough. Anyway, he recommended I come to his blog and subscribe and give my thoughts since they wanted to see intelligent theists. I subscribed and yesterday responded to something about blind faith including the Richard Dawkins idea that faith is believing something without evidence.

                  In the comments section, somehow it came to the cosmological argument, which I had not advanced, and the pointing out of how silly it was. After all, it's silly to say that everything that exists has a cause. Why is it that God is the exception? The blog owner and another atheist said this and a third showed up to celebrate what a great response it was.

                  Yes. Absolutely wonderful.

                  Except, you know, that's not what the argument is.

                  I know of no serious defender of the cosmological argument who is a scholar of the field and/or teaches at an institution of higher learning who advances this argument. None of them say "Everything has a cause." The argument traditionally given is "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

                  To say something like this would be like me going to a group I was giving an apologetics lecture to and saying, "Do you want to know how stupid evolution is? Let me give you an example. Evolutionists believe that a fish crawled out of the sea and turned into a puppy dog and that puppy dog gave birth to a lion who gave birth to a human being. Isn't that stupid?"

                  It definitely is. The problem is that evolutionists do not present arguments like this. This is not the way evolution is formulated. Keep in mind that this does not mean evolution is true nor does it mean that evolution is false. The atheists misrepresented the Kalam, but that does not mean that the Kalam is an airtight argument that works. The Kalam must still stand on its own two feet.

                  What it does mean is when dealing with any argument, one must deal with the argument as it is and not as one would like to have it. Do the latter and you can dispatch with any argument. Just turn it into something completely ridiculous and refute that and your work is done.

                  It's also quite ironic to have atheists talking about blind faith and yet believing simply whatever is read in a book or on a web site by an atheist without looking to see if the argument is right. Were any theistic philosophers consulted to see if they used this argument? You know the answer to that as well as I do.

                  This has been going after atheists, but keep in mind this is entirely unacceptable for Christians. We are people who do want to take down our opponents' arguments and we should, but let's make sure we are taking down their arguments. There is no victory in making a fake argument and it's dishonest and an insult to the cause of Christ.*

                  And to atheist readers of this, if you have done this, stop it. Deal with the real argument. When I see the fake argument put forward, I just conclude that you're an atheist who doesn't know what he's talking about.

                  In Christ,
                  Nick Peters
                  The problem with the argument is in the assumption that the Universe, i.e. that the substance composing temporal things, began to exist.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    The problem with the argument is in the assumption that the Universe, i.e. that the substance composing temporal things, began to exist.
                    The observable universe is cited to be 13.7 billion years old. Based on the understanding that running the universe backwards that is how long it seem to have been expanding. It has a cause for this. What we (not as Christians) do not know is whether that is a unique origin or a bounce of a never ending cycle. (As Christians John 1:3, Genesis 1:1 etc.)

                    Even a never ending cycle needs a reason.

                    The argument is not "everything has a cause" but "everything which has a beginning has a cause." The apparent evidence is the universe has a beginning. We have no evidence that it does not.
                    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      The observable universe is cited to be 13.7 billion years old. Based on the understanding that running the universe backwards that is how long it seem to have been expanding. It has a cause for this. What we (not as Christians) do not know is whether that is a unique origin or a bounce of a never ending cycle. (As Christians John 1:3, Genesis 1:1 etc.)

                      Even a never ending cycle needs a reason.

                      The argument is not "everything has a cause" but "everything which has a beginning has a cause." The apparent evidence is the universe has a beginning. We have no evidence that it does not.
                      No, the evidence is that our particular spacetime had a beginning, not that the substance out of which it is formed had a beginning.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        No, the evidence is that our particular spacetime had a beginning, not that the substance out of which it is formed had a beginning.
                        The argument is what begins has a cause.

                        What ever that "substance," as you are calling it, whether it be God or an infinite series of events with no first event. And if an infinite series of events, what would be that series of events cause?; And if such an infinite series is said to be uncaused, there would need be yet an uncaused existence for in which such series might exist. There would still need to be God (uncaused Existence).
                        Last edited by 37818; 03-16-2018, 07:53 AM.
                        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          The argument is what begins has a cause.

                          What ever that "substance," as you are calling it, whether it be God or an infinite series of events with no first event. And if an infinite series of events, what would be that series of events cause?; And if such an infinite series is said to be uncaused, there would need be yet an uncaused existence for in which such series might exist. There would still need to be God (uncaused Existence).
                          You have the same infinite regress problem to solve whether it's an eternal god that caused the universe or an eternal substance that caused the universe. The difference is that in the latter case you don't have the problem of creation out of nothing.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            You have the same infinite regress problem to solve whether it's an eternal god that caused the universe or an eternal substance that caused the universe. The difference is that in the latter case you don't have the problem of creation out of nothing.
                            It is not a problem for God in either case. God being omnipotent, being of infinite power. In any case God is (uncaused Existence).
                            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                              It is not a problem for God in either case. God being omnipotent, being of infinite power. In any case God is (uncaused Existence).
                              Well, you can always assert that a god can do anything, he can even create something out of nothing, but such an assertion is hardly a convincing argument, nor is there any reason one should believe it.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                              14 responses
                              75 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                              6 responses
                              61 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                              1 response
                              23 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                              7 responses
                              52 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Working...
                              X