Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Philosophy and God » Atheism » The practical impossibility of atheism

The practical impossibility of atheism

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1The practical impossibility of atheism Empty The practical impossibility of atheism on Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:47 pm

Otangelo


Admin
The practical impossibility of atheism 

Atheists believe, they are intelligent, based on their brains, which were not intelligently designed

​The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes, and must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.

Atheists assume their senses and ability to reason are accurately digesting the information around us. That is an unprovable presupposition.  Like the laws of logic. You have to assume them in order to prove them. Which is another presupposition most all humans hold. Atheists also presuppose that objective moral values exist - like it is wrong to torture, rape and kill babies for fun. But atheists cannot consistently claim that any moral values exist, if there is no prescribing entity. So they borrow constantly from the Christian worldview. But the atheists can not consistently account for the validity of his presuppositions while the believer in God, and in special, Christian, can. God has given us our ability to reason. Atheists have no reason to believe in their own reasoning and any of anyone else. The naturalistic worldview collapses right here. Unless the truth of Gods existence is presupposed, and so, that our thinking reliable, logically sound and trustworthy, we can not make sense of the world whatsoever. The logical evolution of an honest thinker which bases his worldview on naturalism is nihilism. If he is weakly constituted he may fall victim to despair, the recognition that life has no intrinsic meaning.

To overcome this, Nietzsche invented and imagined a person as the “overman” (Übermensch), the one who teaches “the meaning of the earth” and has no need of otherworldly supports for the values he embodies. He understood that taken naturalism, materialism, existentialism, atheism as true, nihilism is the ultimate meaning of the moral point of view, its life-denying essence, and he reconfigures the moral idea of autonomy so as to release the life-affirming potential within it. Nietzsche also rationalized a way to overcome the vacuum of the existence of objective moral values based on prescription, " ought to be's ", which can only exist in face of a prescribing entity, by suggesting an autonomy “beyond good and evil.” But if one is to speak of autonomy, meaning, and value at all, the mode of being beyond good and evil cannot simply be a lawless state of arbitrary and impulsive behaviour. If such existence is to be thinkable there must be a standard by which success or failure can be measured. Nietzsche variously indicates such a standard in his references to “health,” “strength,” and “the meaning of the earth.”

If our biological features, and more importantly our cognitive machinery evolved from some random forces of nature can we trust our brain and our thinking? the very thinking, belief or trust in naturalism which are the products of blind or random forces of nature?? If we are just an evolved, ape-like being, the result of random mutations, why should someone believe in someone else's arguments? How could I trust that our rationale makes actually any sense?

“But then with me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
[ Charles Darwin To William Graham 3 July 1881]”

C.S.Lewis: One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the naturalistic worldview].... The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears.... [U]nless Reason is an absolute--all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.
"Is Theology Poetry?", The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses
http://mirror1.booksdescr.org/ads.php?md5=9BFA0EA873D6877852A258BE06FC0A5E

C.S.Lewis:
“Granted that Reason is prior to matter and that the light of the primal Reason illuminates finite minds, I can understand how men should come, by observation and inference, to know a lot about the universe they live in. If, on the other hand, I swallow the scientific cosmology as a whole [i.e. materialism], then not only can I not fit in Christianity, but I cannot even fit in science. If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.”

“To find the metaphysical beliefs…governing scientific research…it would have been enough to speak of one belief, the belief in a personal rational Creator. It was this belief, as cultivated especially within a Christian matrix, which supported the [scientific] view for which the world was an objective and orderly entity investigable by the mind because the mind too was an orderly and objective product of the same rational, that is, perfectly consistent Creator.
Dr. Stanley Jaki, Templeton Prize winner, Distinguished Professor of physics, Seton Hall University

An atheist must believe ( as it is the only alternative to a creator )  that he is the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its supposed chemical and biological evolutionary progress, the by-product of natural, undirected and spontaneous causes. When he claims there is no evidence of Gods existence, he presupposes that he can trust his senses and rational thoughts, a product of these natural processes and that the world and sensory perceptions are objective and orderly entities. Unless the inferences based on sensory observations and reason are valid and trustworthy, the whole picture disappears and is in ruins. But, as Darwin stated, if man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, how can it be of any value or at all trustworthy? Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? Here is an obvious contradiction. Atheists ask me at the same moment to accept their conclusions and to discredit the only basis upon which that conclusion can be based. As Dr. Stanley Jaki stated: Science started in the past centuries based on the Christian matrix, which supported the [scientific] view for which the world was an objective and orderly entity investigable by the mind because the mind too was an orderly and objective product of the same rational, that is, perfectly consistent Creator.

Materialism claims that everything has a material cause. That would include human behaviour. That would include the workings of the brain, which is said by atheistic materialists to be equivalent to the mind. Therefore we are the directed, not the directors of our actions. This, in turn, leads to the inescapable conclusion that no human belief, rationalization, or mental process can be relied on with respect to anything. A deterministic view such as this obviously undercuts the ability to direct one's own destiny or thoughts, for that matter. That view leads furthermore to the claim that there is no free will, but that all our actions are pre-determined by atoms, molecules, and organic chemistry.

Modern man, says Schaeffer, resides in a two-story universe. In the lower story is the finite world without God; here life is absurd, as we have seen. In the upper story are meaning, value, and purpose. Now modern man lives in the lower story because he believes there is no God. But he cannot live happily in such an absurd world; therefore, he continually makes leaps of faith into the upper story to affirm meaning, value, and purpose, even though he has no right to since he does not believe in God. Modern man is totally inconsistent when he makes this leap because these values cannot exist without God, and man in his lower story does not have God. 1

The strong atheist which claims that most probably, no God(s) exists, has no rational basis to make any meaningful and trustworthy claim, if his brain is developed from the mind of the lower animals, evolved from some random forces of nature, some random mutations, why should someone believe in anyone else's arguments and claims? Atheists are irrational and atheism is self-defeating.

John Bynum : The only way to know anything at all is to know everything.....***OR***..... have revelation from someone who does.
The atheist worldview can not account for knowledge. So as soon as he makes a knowledge claim he has already abandoned his worldview and borrowed from the theistic / judeo-christian worldview. Which means he has lost as soon as he begins to debate. Christianity is true by virtue of the impossibility of the contrary.

=============================================================================================================================================

The practical impossibility of atheism Sem_tz11

Atheist: We rely on logic, reason, and science.
Answer: How did logic and reason emerge? randomly? luck?
" aghmm .....&*$#@..... - scratching head - science is working on it. "
Truth said: Atheists rely on wishful thinking, blind faith, and random chance as a powerful mechanism to explain our existence. Its a perfect example of non-reasoning, and self-delusion. Atheists are irrational and atheism is self-defeating.

"DNA neither knows nor cares, DNA just is, and we dance to its music." Richard Dawkins The forgoing militates against every innate sense of our own nature. Assertion justified.

 “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course, I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”
― C.S. Lewis


Atheists assume their senses and ability to reason are accurately digesting the information around us. That is an unprovable presupposition.  Like the laws of logic. You have to assume them in order to prove them. Which is another presupposition most all humans hold. But the atheists can not consistently account for the validity of his presuppositions while the Christian can. God has given us our ability to reason. Atheists have nothing. Their worldview collapses right there. Unless the truth of Gods existence is our presupposition we can not make sense of the world whatsoever.
The only way to know anything at all is to know everything.....***OR***..... have revelation from Someone who does.
The atheist worldview can not account for knowledge. So as soon as he makes a knowledge claim he has already abandoned his worldview and borrowed from the Christian worldview. Which means he has lost as soon as he begins to debate. Christianity is true by virtue of the impossibility of the contrary.

Atheism shoots science in the foot and then shoots itself in the head! Atheism cannot account for the existence of logic and it has to deny the existence of truth ( Darwin himself doubted that the human brain which was the result of irrational processes could be trusted to be rational ) Without this two science is impossible! If you take the view of common ancestry and macroevolution as true, you cannot trust anything about what you think is true. How are you sure your thoughts are logical if they derive from a lucky evolutionary accident that was not logical at all?

You believe ON SHEER FAITH, that something came from nothing (absolutely nothing?) -for no reason. Therefore, according to your belief system, non-material entities such as objective truth is a myth since even the most basic principles of logic are all produced by a random accident, as is even your brain. This, in turn, means that your every thought is a random, meaningless chemical fizz. So, if your belief system is true, then the comment you just made is nothing more than the accidental result of a meaningless chemical reaction, in a randomly formed chunk of brain matter. Newsflash my friend. No one gives a hoot about any so-called data produced by a randomly programmed computer. Such a computer would be inherently unreliable and the data would be presumed faulty. Therefore, when atheists say that the Universe is an accident, and nothing within it is designed for a purpose, including their own brains, they cede any right to have their randomly produced thoughts taken seriously. So, when you call anything "superstitious", your comment is nothing more than a bad joke, or more accurately, a self-deception that you pull on yourself. Like all atheists, you want to have your cake and eat it too when you claim that 1. God is a superstition and 2. You'd do well to constantly remind yourself that your thoughts,(according to atheism) are completely meaningless chemical reactions, occurring in a long chain of cause and effect from mechanical, purposeless physical forces acting on your equally random and accidentally produced brain chemistry and therefore, within an atheistic framework, your thoughts could never be meaningful or worth sharing.

The difference is not in the existence of the soul, or mind itself but in the concept of a designed, planned product of an intelligent Mind, as opposed to an accident generated from blind random chance. If your brain is designed to think according to rational, logical patterns and if it comes with an organic version of pre- installed software that allows it not only to function rationally but also to recognize its own rationality, then you can proceed to analyze problems with confidence that your thoughts truly possess rationality, meaning, value, and purpose.

The only design gives you that certainty of rationality, meaning, value and purpose. Blind chance can only produce a more random blind chance. Without the prospect of an Eternal Mind, all is meaningless. Plato and Aristotle recognized this and hence their concepts of non-material Forms and the Unmoved Mover. Later, Aquinas realized that the great minds of Plato and Aristotle had paved a road that can only possibly lead to the Triune God of the Christianity.

from all practical appearances we just shouldn't be here but here we are, you and i, and although we disagree on fundamental issues of life we are both apparently rational beings. But where does rationality come from? Ask that and we're back in the loop of causation. Every effect has a cause. That is, as you well know, one of the Basic Principles of Logic. It follows then that no effect is greater than its cause and as we observe our material world, sure enough, we can point to nothing that was not caused by something that was powerful enough as a secondary, instrumental, or material cause, to cause that effect. But when we come to the sticky, no material effects that we observe and even intuitively acknowledge, such as rationality, morality, objective truth, and objective standards of aesthetics, as well as the Virtues such as, "love of our family and fellow man is better than hate" suddenly atheism chokes!  Thanks to Mac Howell 

If a man, obviously drunk, whom you have never met, stumbles up to you on the street and says to you "Your mother told me to tell you not to go home, the house is full of spiders." You will not trust what he says. Why? Because he is irrational, because, he is drunk, and we know that we cannot trust irrational sources.
But if our brains are ultimately the product of a series of blind, irrational causes then how could we possibly know what truth is?
You might suggest that natural selection is not blind in the sense of being irrational, it picks the best, or picks what works. But blind, deaf, senseless random mutation has to produce anything and everything from which natural selection selects. Natural selection cannot create ANYTHING. It cannot select a green bug from four brown bugs. It is totally dependent on totally random forces.
It may select what works, but how or why would we imagine we could know "truth". Why would we imagine the idea of truth? Why would we imagine? And yet we do. And we believe there is such a thing as truth and that we can know it. Credit to Rick Swindell

The practical impossibility of atheism Cs_lew10

The practical impossibility of atheism 8gW1eb3





Is God Real? Evidence from the Laws of Logic 2

If you take the view of common ancestry and macroevolution as true, you cannot trust anything about what you think is true. How are you sure your thoughts are logical if they derive from a lucky evolutionary accident that was not logical at all?

Most of us don’t think much about the physical or non-physical laws of the universe necessary for us to exist (and make sense of our existence). As an example, we usually take the law of gravity for granted; it doesn’t really matter how the law operates or what forces lie behind it. We simply accept the fact we live in a world where gravity is a reality. In a similar way, there are many conceptual laws we also take for granted. These abstract truths order our world and guide our exploration and experience. One area of conceptual truth involves a body of concepts we call the Laws of Logic. Is God real? The existence of the Laws of Logic may provide us with an answer.


Modern man, says Schaeffer, resides in a two-story universe. In the lower story is the finite world without God; here life is absurd, as we have seen. In the upper story are meaning, value, and purpose. Now modern man lives in the lower story because he believes there is no God. But he cannot live happily in such an absurd world; therefore, he continually makes leaps of faith into the upper story to affirm meaning, value, and purpose, even though he has no right to since he does not believe in God. Modern man is totally inconsistent when he makes this leap because these values cannot exist without God, and man in his lower story does not have God. 1

If the Bible were not true, nothing could be true - and if nothing were true then you couldn't even make sense of your question! (Or any question or any knowledge ). That's the absurdity of denying God - the one true source of truth. It's important to realize that to determine truth we need to not only have the right sources, but we must put them in the correct order of importance. Our own personal bias can also often play a big part in determining what we choose to believe is true. And if you don't have a solid basis for knowledge and truth, the result is you can't know anything and you will end up being deceived. Truth can be defined as that which corresponds with reality. (A correspondence theory of truth). However, the problem is - how do you know what reality is? How do you know what is real?
"What is "real"? How do you define "real"?" (Morpheus - The Matrix)


In order for our reasoning process to be trustworthy and valid, it would have to be the result of a rational creation process of the creator of man. How could non-reason produce reason? Non-logic produce logic? If apples cannot produce bananas, how could unanimated matter produce logic and that reason discover physical truths which involve complex math and metaphysical truths which are essentially non-materialistic? Naturalism is like someone sitting on a branch of a tree and saw it off. Atheism is self-defeating.

Atheists argue about being right based on a thinking process, which has no foundation or validness to be trustworthy if its origin is not rational.
Only the believer in a rational God, which is the ultimate source of rationality and intelligence, and created humans in his likeliness, equipped with the same ability of reason, logic, sound thinking process and able to reach metaphysical truths can trust his mind, because he believes to be the result of a higher mind, which has all these faculties in a perfect, superior manner.

Under atheism, all life is a mere accident of a mindless, non-rational, meaningless universe. How does any non-rational process create mind and rationality?  To anticipate the usual responses to this problem – such as that we have observations that confirm the reliability of our minds – I add, no we cannot trust the reliability of the human mind by using the human mind to test its reliability. This is an evident contradiction!

This is a good & valid argument in the toolbox of an apologist, but in my view, not enough or the only way to provide justification for a theistic view of origins. I do not see any attractiveness for that reason to stick to the presuppositional approach, which excludes the traditional method, which permits a much broader spectrum of arguments and views which point to God. Exploring these proofs is an exciting intellectual adventure, full of surprises, and awe-inspiring things that the creator has prepared for the ones that seek deep enough.


If you are an unbeliever.
Could it be, that the arguments that have been provided by theists, ARE sound, and the God of the Bible does indeed exist, and you are just self-delusional?

No you say?
How could you possibly know ?
According to natural materialism, your rationality is nothing more than neurochemical wiring, therefore you are forced to think whatever the particular chemical wiring in your brain makes you think.
Knowing truth is subservient to wellbeing, on the evolutionary worldview.
So it is quite possible that you believe what you believe because of the comfort it provides, not because it is true.
And how would you ever know?
You'd have to use the very thing (chemical reactions in your brain) to try to ascertain if the chemical reactions in your brain is accurately assessing truth.
A vicious circle, from which the atheist cannot escape.

The practical impossibility of atheism 21371010

The practical impossibility of atheism Atheis10

http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/charles-darwin/the-life-and-letters-of-charles-darwin-day-99-of-188/
The practical impossibility of atheism Darwin10

1. http://www.bethinking.org/is-there-meaning-to-life/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god
2. http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is-god-real-evidence-from-the-laws-of-logic/
3. https://www.godorabsurdity.com/truth.html



Last edited by Admin on Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:10 pm; edited 22 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

2The practical impossibility of atheism Empty Re: The practical impossibility of atheism on Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:28 am

Otangelo


Admin
How can you trust your reasoning and logic, if it is the product of an unguided evolutionary process? 

When somebody claims to not knowing about origins, he also claims of not knowing the origin of his ability of reasoning, and not know if he can trust his logic and know any truth at all. Once he admits ignorance, all bets are on the table, and he cannot know anything for sure. But we cannot live happy by being constantly conscient that our views cannot have any validity at all, so we live as if we knew the truth, despite lacking the foundation for such. This is a paradoxical and inconsistent thinking which leads to cognitive dissonance. Agnosticism lacks inner consistency, and the mere fact that we are conscient, and can think logically, should provide by itself evidence of a creator.

Atheist: We rely on logic, reason, and science.
Question: How did logic and reason emerge? randomly? luck?
Atheist: " aghmm .....&*$#@..... - scratching head -we don't know, but science is working on it. "

If you are just an evolved, ape-like being, the result of random mutations,, why should I believe in your arguments? How could I trust that your rationale makes actually any sense?

Darwin recoginzed the problem: [ Charles Darwin To William Graham 3 July 1881]”

“But then with me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?

The practical impossibility of atheism 8gW1eb3

Materialism claims that everything has a material cause. That would include human behaviour. That would include the workings of the brain, which is said by atheistic materialists to be equivalent to the mind. Therefore we are the directed, not the directors of our actions. This, in turn, leads to the inescapable conclusion that no human belief, rationalization, or mental process can be relied on with respect to anything. A deterministic view such as this obviously undercuts the ability to direct one's own destiny or thoughts, for that matter.

The practical impossibility of atheism Cs_lew10

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

3The practical impossibility of atheism Empty Re: The practical impossibility of atheism on Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:44 pm

Otangelo


Admin
C.S.Lewis: One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the naturalistic worldview].... The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears.... [U]nless Reason is an absolute--all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.
"Is Theology Poetry?", The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses
http://mirror1.booksdescr.org/ads.php?md5=9BFA0EA873D6877852A258BE06FC0A5E

Dembsky: Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by arguing that competitors to that proposition are false. ( Contrast this with Popperian falsification, where propositions are corroborated to the degree that they successfully withstand attempts to falsify them ) Provided the proposition, together with its competitors, form a mutually exclusive and exhaustive class, eliminating all the competitors entails that the proposition is true. As Sherlock Holmes famous dictum says: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. This is the ideal case, in which eliminative inductions, in fact, become deductions. The problem is that in practice we don't have a neat ordering of competitors that can then all be knocked down with a few straightforward and judicious blows.

A cumulative case for the God of the bible

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1753-a-cumulative-case-for-the-god-of-the-bible

We have no access through our senses to prove empirically what ultimate reality is. If God exists, or not, cannot be known scientifically. That's why it makes no sense to ask for proofs of Gods existence. All we can do is evaluate, and figure out the preponderance of the evidence, where it leads to.

The steps of progression to elaborate an epistemologically solid world view goes as follows:
1. The starting point with the recognition that agnosticism or ignorance has no justification in the age of information.
2. Defining a solid epistemological framework, excluding scientism or verificationism, and permitting a holistic examination of evidence including philosophical and theological considerations. The best methodology to make meaningful inferences and conclude the best, most accurate world view is based on the current wealth of knowledge of operational and historical sciences, philosophy, and theism.
3. Disposition to analyze the evidence as much honest and unbiased as possible, permitting it to lead wherever it is. An unbiased starting point for inquiry of world views and explanations of origins is essential in order to come as close as possible to gain a realistic understanding of reality that includes physics and metaphysics. That means proper understanding of science, philosophical and theological explanations and searching for truth without eliminating possible theistic implications a priori.
4. Research of falsifiable scientific evidence and philosophical considerations which after careful evaluation point to Intelligence as a better mechanism to explain our origins than naturalistic explanations.
5. The inference of intelligent design/creationism leads to deism, theism or pantheism.
6. Philosophical considerations lead to agnostic theism
7. Specifics about various evidence leads to the conclusion of Infinite Creator.
8. Comparative religions and historical evidence point to God of the Hebrews/Abraham.
9. Internal evidence constrains the choice of Judaism. Islam, Christianity, and born-again Christianity.
10. How we proceed in the cumulative case for Christianity is a much more detailed step. Ultimately we are not talking about "proof" like in repeated experimentation...but rather a preponderance of the evidence. There's no empirical proof for the Resurrection or the Virgin birth. These too are based on faith and the cumulative case made for Christianity. Ultimately it is the conviction of the Holy Spirit to believe in the miracles of Jesus and His Lordship/Deity.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

4The practical impossibility of atheism Empty Re: The practical impossibility of atheism on Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:13 pm

Otangelo


Admin
Given naturalism and evolution, there is no reason to trust your own judgment, or even that free will or rationality exists. He does not really elaborate, but the quote is probably part of a larger context. If everything has a natural or materialistic cause, that fact imposes a limitation. There is no ground to suppose that matter can be transcended by anything like self-direction. How can a material thing be self-directed? It cannot. Matter can only be acted on. To suppose such things as rationality, logic, free will, etc., is to cheat by borrowing from the Christian worldview.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
No one has ever thought of a way of deriving personality from nonpersonal sources — Francis Schaeffer

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1375-the-practical-impossibility-of-atheism#6599

"The Bible states that this God who is personal created man in His own image.… God is personal, & man is also personal.

If man has been kicked up by chance out of what is only impersonal, then those things that make him man — hope of purpose and significance, love, motions of morality and rationality, beauty and verbal communication — are ultimately unfulfillable and are thus meaningless.  In such a situation, is man higher or lower?  He would then be the lowest creature on the scale.  The green moss on the rock is higher than he, for it can be fulfilled in the universe which exists.  But if the world is what these men say it is, then man (not only individually but as a race), being unfulfillable, is dead.  In this situation man should not walk on the grass, but respect it — for it is higher than he!"
— Francis A. Schaeffer (1982). The complete works of Francis A. Schaeffer: a Christian worldview. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books.

https://br.pinterest.com/pin/379639443587144067/



https://thechiefendofman.blogspot.com/2013/07/no-one-has-ever-thought-of-way-of.html?m=0&fbclid=IwAR3ix5xW200Iq-stExZXSmBpgfXFS9MPrb-NOIjLlH4P2Uf0aFVDYOHus3w

It might be helpful to illustrate the situation in this way.
Imagine you are in the Alps, and from a high vantage point you can see three parallel ranges of mountains with two valleys in between.  In one valley there is a lake, but the other is dry.  Suddenly you begin to witness what sometimes happens in the Alps; a lake forming in the second valley where there was none before.  As you see the water rising, you may wonder what its source is.  If it stops at the same level as the lake in the neighboring valley, you may, after careful measurements, conclude that there is a possibility that the water has come from the first valley.  But if your measurement shows that the level of the second lake is twenty feet higher than the first, then you can no longer consider that its source may be from the neighboring valley and you would have to seek another explanation.  Personality is like that; no one has ever thought of a way of deriving personality from nonpersonal sources.

Therefore, biblical Christianity has an adequate and reasonable explanation for the source and meaning of human personality.  Its source is sufficient — the personal God on the high order of Trinity.  Without such a source men are left with personality coming from the impersonal (plus time, plus chance).

The two alternatives are very clearcut.  Either there is a personal beginning to everything, or one has what the impersonal throws up by chance out of the time sequence.  The fact that the second alternative may be veiled by connotation words makes no difference.  The words used by Eastern pantheism; the theological words such as Tillich’s “Ground of Being”; the secular shift from mass to energy or motion — all eventually come back to the impersonal, plus time, plus chance.  If this is really the only answer to man’s personality, then personality is no more than an illusion, a kind of sick joke which no amount of semantic juggling will alter.  Only some form of mystical jump will allow us to accept that personality comes from impersonality.  This was the position into which Teilhard de Chardin was forced. His answer is only a mystical answer of words.

Because these men will not accept the only explanation which can fit the facts of their own experience, they have become metaphysical magicians.  No one has presented an idea, let alone demonstrated it to be feasible, to explain how the impersonal beginning, plus time, plus chance, can give personality.  We are distracted by a flourish of endless words, and lo, personality has appeared out of the hat!  This is the water rising above its source.  No one in all the history of humanistic, rationalistic thought has found a solution.  As a result, either the thinker must say man is dead, because personality is a mirage; or else he must hang his reason on a hook outside the door and cross the threshold into the leap of faith which is the new level of despair.

A man like Sir Julian Huxley has clarified the dilemma by acknowledging, though he is an atheist, that somehow or other, against all that one might expect, man functions better if he acts as though God is there.  This sounds like a feasible solution for a moment, the kind of answer a computer might give if you fed the sociological data into it.  God is dead, but act as if He were alive.  However, a moment’s reflection will show what a terrible solution this is.  Ibsen, the Norwegian, put it like this: if you take away a man’s lie, you take away his hope. These thinkers are saying in effect that man can only function as man for an extended period of time if he acts on the assumption that a lie (that the personal God of Christianity is there) is true.  You cannot find any deeper despair than this for a sensitive person.  This is not an optimistic, happy, reasonable or brilliant answer.  It is darkness and death.

Imagine that a universe existed which was made up only of liquids and solids, and no free gases.  A fish was swimming in this universe.  This fish, quite naturally, was conformed to its environment, so that it was able to go on living.  But let us suppose that by blind chance, as the evolutionists would have us believe, this fish developed lungs as it continued swimming in this universe without any gases.  Now this fish would no longer be able to function and fulfill its position as a fish.  Would it then be higher or lower in its new state with lungs?  It would be lower, for it would drown.  In the same way,

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

6The practical impossibility of atheism Empty Re: The practical impossibility of atheism on Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:44 pm

Otangelo


Admin
There is only one reality which is and that matters: Matter, hailed by the philosophy of materialism. And modern science is its prophet.

Something which we cannot detect without our senses, which is outside of the realm of scientific investigation, the reality which gives rise to everything else, exists, a principle which is fundamental, at the bottom of all existence. A worldview that either we are contingent from God, or that the natural world is all there is, is a view held of faith - by both sides- theists, and atheists. The circle around, above, and beyond the universe, the name, any which we give to it, be it nothing, a bubble multiverse, a quantum state, or a mind, no matter what starting point is chosen, its a confession based on faith, by anyone. Any inference of origins begins with a starting point. Turtles all the way down bring us never to the present moment in time.

Who rejects God, searches for alternatives. Tries to find a substitute. When God as an absolutely necessary being is rejected, existence is redefined, and reduced to the ' matter only' view, in other words, materialism. This causes a domino effect, where everything we know of cannot be explained through a creator but must find valid explanations in the universe, or, as Carl Sagen coined, the Cosmos, which could be a higher physical existence, giving birth to the universe we live in: Multi-verses, bubble universes, quantum mechanics giving rise to a Bang, virtual particles etc. The more courageous claim boldly that even nothingness could explain our existence, and that in order to prove them wrong, it must be proven that something cannot come from nothing. And the more shameless confess ignorance and see it absolutely fit and reasonable and a honest justifiable confession, until science has advanced more, and gives explanations to deeper questions. Some go as far as to erect the multiverse to a scientific theory, and as such, a totally rational scientific view. The physical mindless realm must explain as well the rise of the mind.

So there are the first two issues that naturalism has no good answers for The origin of the Universe, and the existence of the mind. God is cancelled out, and what is left, the universe must explain the existence of the mind, which is inherent of a different substance than electrons orbiting in a certain motion in the brain.

Reductio leading to absurdum no.1  

The Bible does not address atheism. Rather it opposes idolatry. The human mind, when rejecting the living God, replaces him with created things. The Old Testament is filled with episodes, where Israel rejected Jahwe, to replace him with created invented Gods.

The worldview we adopt is the lense upon which we envision the world. Upon that lense, we formulate our moral choices and general choices in life. A Christian asks for Gods will, and might become a missionary at a distant place. he lives upon the direction and moral code given by God. An atheist might become an outspoken militant for secular values and woman rights for abortion. He lives as if there were moral obligations, but cannot justify where they come from. The lack of foundation to explain why all humans have a moral sense and of justice, is the next problem which atheism faces. Survival of the fittest is a no-explanation since animals survive just fine just with their instincts.

Reductio leading to absurdum no.2

The modern secular view is that physical laws suffice to explain the origin of life, neglecting the fact that  life is essentially not only based on chemistry and chemical reactions and physical laws, but by laws of information.
The origin of codified information cannot be sourced back to matter.

Reductio leading to absurdum no.3

Biologists claim that the simplistic explanation of evolution going back to Darwin , and even further back to islamic writers in the ninth century, and before, explain the complexity of the living, and biodiversity. Neglecting, that at least twenty different mechanisms, based on codified information, and signaling, are essential, to build bodies.

Reductio leading to absurdum no.4

Molecular biologists observe that a minimal living Cell is irreducible, and requires a minimal number of parts, in order to kick-start life, nonetheless, propose in a stream of pseudo-scientific nonsensical proposals of bottom-up chemical evolution, where the basic building blocks of life were just lying around on early earth, in a prebiotic soup, or hydrothermal vents, and somehow gave rise to ultrasophisticated chemical factories, building the very own building blocks, which were accidentally and randomly lying around on the bottom of the ocean, or on prebiotic puddles.

Cancelling God out of the equation leads to

Reductio leading to absurdum no.5

Rather than keep scientism buried in the sixties of the twentieth century, atheists can't leave the temptation, and take empiricism out of the tomb, and keep the outdated epistemological Zombie artificially alive. How often do we see atheists today ask to prove Gods existence, and, unless, their senses are not satisfied, and God does not appear in the sky to satisfy their burden of proof, the mantra " Not enough evidence" is repeated ad nausea.

While Christians and believers in the Bible accept that we are made upon the image of God, and as such, have a meaning and dignity which elevates us above the animal world, atheists must explain the special status and distinction which is self-evident away, by claiming that we are nothing more than a species, which evolved a greater brain, for whatever evolutionary pressures one wants to adopt..... have apes as cousins, and share a common ancestor.

From being made by the image of God, we are made by the image of an unnamed creature, " descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of the Old World. "

Reductio leading to absurdum no.6

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

7The practical impossibility of atheism Empty Re: The practical impossibility of atheism on Mon May 13, 2019 2:22 pm

Otangelo


Admin
if man has been kicked up by chance out of what is only impersonal, then those things that make him man — hope of purpose and significance, love, motions of morality and rationality, beauty and verbal communication — are ultimately unfulfillable and are thus meaningless. In such a situation, is man higher or lower? He would then be the lowest creature on the scale. The green moss on the rock is higher than he, for it can be fulfilled in the universe which exists. But if the world is what these men say it is, then man (not only individually but as a race), being unfulfillable, is dead. In this situation man should not walk on the grass, but respect it — for it is higher than he!"

— Francis A. Schaeffer (1982). The complete works of Francis A. Schaeffer: a Christian worldview. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books.

http://thechiefendofman.blogspot.com/2013/07/no-one-has-ever-thought-of-way-of.html?m=0

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum