Can we trust what God says?

[Scrawly]

There's a difference between knowing something to be true, and showing something to be true. God's Word is self-attesting and, since God is the highest authority, self-authenticating. I know that the Scriptures are God's Word---not because I've done research or reasoned to that as a mere conclusion (otherwise I would be placing myself and my own, fallible reasoning as the ultimate authority in my thinking over the testimony of God's Word)---but rather because Scripture carries it's own internal evidence. It's the exact same way as when men automatically recognize the created order as the work of the one true God Whom they've known their whole lives, not simply "a god" somewhere "out there", whose identity is to be speculated on at a later time. Experience can condition us to recognize the signature of a good friend on a written document. In similar fashion, God has created man---in His own image---in such a way that we are "conditioned", if you will, to recognize His signature in Scripture. This is why I struggled growing up, having been raised in the Mormon church. When playing outside or reading the Bible I could clearly apprehend God there. It was inescapable But when I walked through the halls of the LDS church, or read the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, there was no recognition, no gripping power, like the words in the Bible have. It was empty and hollow. I would know which book was the Word of God and which was the fake in the same way as the Psalmist in Psalm 119:9 knew---by simply reading them. As Charles Spurgeon once put it, "One of the most modern pretenders to inspiration is the Book of Mormon. I could not blame you should you laugh outright while I read aloud a page from that farrago."
But that's not demonstration, is it? All men know God and are without excuse for denying Him (Romans 1:18-22). Yet God has placed a moral requirement on us to defend Him and His Word from so-called "rational" attacks (1 Peter 3:15), not because there's anything out there that poses a rational danger to His truth, but because "destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God" and "taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5) glorifies God, and He deserves that.

The first issue that stands out based upon what you say above (though I accept and welcome much of it) is that when you state the Scripture is self-authenticating, attesting and authoritative you seem to have circumvented the interpretative process of exegeting the Scripture. One can hold that the Scripture is infallible and true to the utmost, however, our interpretation of the Scripture is not. Therefore, we cannot castigate human reasoning as putting ourselves over and above the Scripture, but rather, we must utilize our God-given reasoning skills in the process of determining precisely how best to interpret the Scripture based upon a number of tools at our disposal.

Excellent question. :) Notice what you described above, "a "holy book" which mirrored the biblical attributes of God."
If this other god had all the attributes of the biblical God, then it would have to be a triune, transcendent, holy, just, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, uncaused, infinitely powerful, fully consistent, logical, and honest Creator of everything outside of Himself. Further, since one of the preconditions of intelligibility is an honest assessment of man's depravity (explaining why humans are so bent on evil), and the solution for that depravity to reunite man to his holy and just Creator, this other god would had to have come down and freely chosen to take the attribute of substitutionary sacrificial lamb onto himself. This would represent an attempt to ape Christinity---to copy it just enough so that they can (they think) have an excuse to deny the true God. In other words, this "other god" is in fact the same God as the God of the Bible, just with a different name attached. They may try to save their little trick question by saying that some things happened differently in that book's history, like, say, Jonah was never sent to Nineveh. But this isn't a significant change in worldview (i.e., it doesn't consitute a different God), it simply represents a request that we think counterfactually about some of God's past choices that don't effect foundational doctrines, nor the preconditions of intelligibility.

I think what I was attempting to highlight is that if one utilizes a strictly presuppostional approach, then they may never be aware that they are defending a falsehood. There would be no way to objectively anchor or confirm their presupposition(s) as true to reality. Thankfully God has given us an event to which the Scripture attests, and to which history can be called forth to confirm - the resurrection of Christ: "..He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." (Acts 17:31). God, in His wisdom, has furnished proof of this event that can be fact-checked using the methods of historical investigation. I don't necessarily think this will convince a skeptic, but it surely can provide assurance as to the veracity of the claim for the believer. I don't think we should reject that evidentialist approach.

But I suspect your concern runs a little deeper.

No, not really.

[whag]

Nope, you are again missing the point. I'm not hoping for anything just pointing out that science can and does change its views and there is no guarantee that what science finds compelling today will be compelling tomorrow. Unless you believe that science is never wrong.

Assuming your reserve is justified and that cosmic and biological evolution might someday replaced by something else, the clues thus far "compel us" for a reason: they are clues that biology and the universe evolve. They drive the research.

Without those clues, science would be stagnant and need to invent findings, which is what you think they do. You are a conspiracy theorist, essentially.

And you suck at Christianity, too. Let me explain. Here you are parroting the same Morris/Hovind crap about science thinking itself error free. Science doesn't say it's never wrong, but it relies on epistemology and methodologies to inch it forward on everything from tectonic plate theory to gravitational theory. Only you are saying evolution is the exception among those theories and is completely wrong.

[JimL]

Really whag? I'm not arguing against uniformity, I'm arguing that apart from God we can not know if the future will be like the past of if the laws of nature were the same in the distant past or if they are the same in parts of the universe we have no knowledge of. Uniformity universally exists because a Rational , All Knowing Mind is in control. And can communicate that that information to human beings. How do you know that uniformity is universal whag? What controls your universe whag?

How do you know uniformity is universal any more so than anyone else seer? Are you suggesting that you know this because God has revealed it to you.

[whag]

No he doesn't whag.

Yes, he does. He won't convince anyone to convert by promoting the idea of a deceptive god.

[Doug Shaver]

To say that you can't be wrong about everything you claim to know is to say that there's at least one thing you can know for certain.

I don't remember saying that. Could I trouble you for a link to the post where I did?

You're dodging, my friend. I didn't ask how you would react in that situation

I thought you were asking that. Now you're saying I was mistaken. Very well, I was mistaken, but that doesn't mean I was dodging.

When asked how he knows he's intrinsically better, he simply says, "I presuppose it". Would that be rational in your book?

In my book, he would be making a mistake.

I have no idea what you mean by "ontic base."

Some object or entity in reality that makes the preconditions what they are, their scope and limits of application (if any), and explains how/why they were that way in the past, and guarantees that they will remain so in the future.

I don't regard that as an intelligible description of anything.

[seer]

How do you know uniformity is universal any more so than anyone else seer? Are you suggesting that you know this because God has revealed it to you.

Yes, because Scriptures tells us so. Mr. Black has already posted the relevant texts. The bigger picture is that we have a rational Being in control. What is in control of your universe Jim?

[seer]

Yes, he does. He won't convince anyone to convert by promoting the idea of a deceptive god.

Deceptive god? Where did Mr. Black say that?

[whag]

Deceptive god? Where did Mr. Black say that?

He's a YEC. A universe designed with proofs of evolution and other long processes would make its author deceptive.

You guys are crap evangelists and should reform your approach. You won't convince anybody but the monumentally naive to become Christians, and even if you do, those people will wither soon.

[seer]

He's a YEC. A universe designed with proofs of evolution and other long processes would make its author deceptive.

Nonsense, did it ever occur to that we could be misreading the evidence? That our conclusions are lacking in relevant facts?

[whag]

Nonsense, did it ever occur to that we could be misreading the evidence? That our conclusions are lacking in relevant facts?

No, that would necessitate the cessation of scientific investigation. If our interpretation is so disposed to error that nothing is trustworthy, all research would be in vain.

Re: tectonics, we can see the midatlantic ridge, we can explain the movement of the crust via convection currents in the mantle, and we can measure the speed of the movement of the plates. That's just one example of the inherent deception if the earth is actually 10,000 years old. There are thousands of other examples.

The problem with you is you see scientific progress on matters teleological and protological as massive conspiracies.

[seer]

Re: tectonics, we can see the midatlantic ridge, we can explain the movement of the crust via convection currents in the mantle, and we can measure the speed of the movement of the plates. That's just one example of the inherent deception if the earth is actually 10,000 years old. There are thousands of other examples.

Perfect example. How do you know the rate of their speed 1,000 years ago? 500 years ago? 6,000 years ago? And BTW - I never said I was a YEC.

The problem with you is you see scientific progress on matters teleological and protological as massive conspiracies.

I did not say conspiracy, though I do believe in dark forces that seek to influence the human mind against the Truth, it is more along the lines of ignorance. We just do not have all the facts in most these cases.

[whag]

Perfect example. How do you know the rate of their speed 1,000 years ago? 500 years ago? 6,000 years ago? And BTW - I never said I was a YEC.

The internal heat of the earth is relatively stable. The heat required to move the plates faster would be sufficient to melt all the rock in the crust, meaning crust wouldn't even exist. Thanks for confirming your interest in science is so minuscule that you couldn't research that answer yourself.



BTW, if you're not a YEC, the speed of continental drift is irrelevant. The data on tectonics is reliable because it lines up with the thousands of other pieces of evidence on geochronology. The fact is you hold into unjustified doubt of evolution and accepted geochronology because you can't reconcile it with your literalist religious presuppositions.

I did not say conspiracy, though I do believe in dark forces that seek to influence the human mind against the Truth, it is more along the lines of ignorance. We just do not have all the facts in most these cases.

We don't have all the facts in ALL cases, not *most* cases. Not knowing every last detail in an investigation doesn't mean the police can't conclude anything.

[seer]

The internal heat of the earth is relatively stable. The heat required to move the plates faster would be sufficient to melt all the rock in the crust, meaning crust wouldn't even exist. Thanks for confirming your interest in science is so minuscule that you couldn't research that answer yourself.

Oh stop whag, you have no idea of the dynamics back then. You are building assumption on assumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_convection

Mantle convection seems to have been much more active during the Hadean period, resulting in gravitational sorting of heavier molten iron, and nickel elements and sulphides in the core, and lighter silicate minerals in the mantle.

There is a current debate within the geophysics community as to whether convection is likely to be 'layered' or 'whole'.[8] This debate is linked to the controversy regarding whether intraplate volcanism is caused by shallow, upper-mantle processes or by plumes from the lower mantle.[6] Geochemists have argued that the lavas erupted in intraplate areas are different in composition from shallow-derived mid ocean ridge basalts (SDMORB). This has been interpreted as their originating from a different region, suggested to be the lower mantle. Others, however, have pointed out that the differences indicate the inclusion of a small component of near-surface material from the lithosphere. Seismologists are also divided, with some arguing that there is no evidence for whole-mantle convection,[9] and others arguing that there is

Typical mantle convection speed is 20 mm/yr near the crust but can vary quite a bit

BTW, if you're not a YEC, the speed of continental drift is irrelevant. The data on tectonics is reliable because it lines up with the thousands of other pieces of evidence on geochronology. The fact is you hold into unjustified doubt of evolution and accepted geochronology because you can't reconcile it with your literalist religious presuppositions.

No, what is relevant is that most of these theories concerning age are build on assumptions, unprovable assumptions. I don't automatically genuflect when "science says."

[whag]

Oh stop whag, you have no idea of the dynamics back then. You are building assumption on assumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_convection







No, what is relevant is that most of these theories concerning age are build on assumptions, unprovable assumptions. I don't automatically genuflect when "science says."

The temperature/speed difference between those two convection hypotheses isn't enough to power your preferred YEC geochronology. If you don't subscribe to YEC, there's no point in questioning the conclusions of geochronology that come from corroborated data.

Also, make up your mind whether God established uniformity. Before, you said he did establish uniformity. Now you're arguing that uniformity can't be tested and that all data that point to it should be regarded as suspect.

[NormATive]

The temperature/speed difference between those two convection hypotheses isn't enough to power your preferred YEC geochronology. If you don't subscribe to YEC, there's no point in questioning the conclusions of geochronology that come from corroborated data.

Also, make up your mind whether God established uniformity. Before, you said he did establish uniformity. Now you're arguing that uniformity can't be tested and that all data that point to it should be regarded as suspect.

C'mon Whag! Didn't you know that Satan planted all the fossils and evidence just to fool us into a false sense of security? Don't laugh - this was actually an answer the pastor of a church told me when I asked him why the Bible didn't mention dinosaurs. It was the very first chip in my theistic armor.

Of course, modern apologetics abandons the Satan planting dinosaur bones in the desert theory in favor of the "Bible only concerns itself with the events of mankind" excuse.

NORM