Home School Advantage

As in sports, home turf has its advantages. Froggie thinks that formal education is much better than Homeschooling.

F-Formal education with formal educators is a very efficient way of gaining knowledge.

What kind of "knowledge" are you talking about, would be my question.

Apparently, teachers are "doing" our kids a real "service" these days.

That aside, you forget to gain real "valid" knowledge is running a company in real life situations. To get out of the class room and experience life. I plan to give my kids a business to run in the near future. Look at Michael Dell who dropped out at age 19 to start Dell Computers. Bill Gates was also a drop out. Even Richard Branson the billionaire who started Virgin Group ( Virgin records, Virgin Airlines...) dropped out at age 16.

There are other famous millionaires out there like Quentin Tarantino, Dave Thomas, Johnny Depp, Nicholas Cage, Christina Aguilera, Jim Carrey, John Travolta, Chris Rock, Joe Pesci, all drop outs and all doing just fine.

It really depends on the individual. Formal education isn't "everything" as a do or die situation. There are plenty of people that were home schooled like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore F. Roosevelt and Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, Ansel Adams, C.S. Lewis, Sir Isaac Newton and many more.

F-This is the downfall of homeschooling. The supposed teacher is not qualified, nor has the experience to help the student formulate the synergies between the ideas being taught.

Complete horseradish! There are large amounts of data/statistics that say the exact opposite of what you are claiming. If you need more there is plenty out there.

I remember a teacher bragging to me that her school had a respectable(?) 20 to 1 student to teacher ratio and I thought that my 1 to 1 ratio was far greater for my children.

They explain how they help build up the children and self esteem by their reward system. Ah, self esteem. We don't raise bullies by falsely building up the kids self esteem. Self esteem movement is more dangerous then you could possibly imagine. Need more proof? 1, 2,3, you get the picture.

My kids all learned to read at age three using Starfall which they love. I print out worksheets for my kids over at Kidzone. I even found a group called Homeschool Dads for support. There is plenty of help out there and Google will show you the way.

There are a great deal of advantages for homeschooling. Such as...

* Parents design the curriculum, ensuring that children are taught relevant, interesting information.

* Children are given more attention because of the smaller class size, allowing for more one on one time.

* Children have less distractions resulting from social pressure from other students.

* Children have greater respect for their parents than any one else, meaning that children will cooperate more with parents than public school instructors.

* Parents will be allowed more time to bond with their children in a very positive way.

We teach our kids how to talk, how to eat, how to tie their shoes and get dressed, and how to ethically maneuver in this world. We are the only ones to show them what importance God is to us. Really, who cares more about their kids then the parents?

Sure there are dysfunctional parents out there, but no matter what outside influence the most impact will be from the parents good or bad. My children do not get exposed to gangs, my kids to not get exposed to drugs, my kids do not get exposed to inappropriate behavior or content. The most important thing is they do not get indoctrinated into a secular mindset. My kids know God.

Could you only imagine if there were no public schools for kids to acquire drugs or get bullied into gangs? Where the parents were forced to interact with their children on a daily basis instead of pawning them off to someone at a day care or school where the people caring for the kids considers the task a form of income or just a job. What a great world this would be.

I cannot do a homeschooling post without mentioning HSLDA who was very instrumental in keeping homeschooling legal here in California. We are lifetime Members.

So, please Froggie and stay in school if you choose. I will raise my kids Godly, thank you.

Update: Apparently CNN is reading my posts. Even though they covered it up and linked to Mental Floss, good for them.

tinyurl.com/HomeSchoolAdv

Atheists Debunked Forever

It was written so well by Thomas it is now our newest post.

Let this stand as an Ode to our brother Thomas who is far from doubting. For those interested he started this conversation here.


Nothing more needs to be said. I believe I can close shop now.

I will just post his reply to Stan. Well done Thomas, I am certain that Van Til, Bahnsen, and TenBruggencate are smiling.

Stan- Logical absolutes exist, by definition.

Thomas- So according to you, the three laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle) are dependent upon man and were invented by man, correct? If this is the case, then they could not be absolute since different minds could conceive of different laws. How do you know who is correct?

If logical absolutes exist only by definition then they could not be absolute. Would they exist if humankind didn’t exist (would adding 2 object to 2 objects still equal 4 objects)? If so, then they are not dependent upon man.

Are these laws material or immaterial? Can the scientific method determine these logical absolutes without using those same logical absolutes to gain that knowledge? They couldn’t. Does absolute truth exist? You would have to say “yes” to this question. Saying “no” would be self-defeating.

Now, if laws of logic are absolute, immaterial, cannot be empirically tested, and absolute truth does exist, how is that possible in an atheistic system? You must have an atheistic answer; otherwise you should stop referring to yourself as an atheist.

Stan-As to your second question, (Is matter eternal or did it come from nothing?) I have no idea, and I don't think it is necessarily an either/or dichotomy as you imply.

What are the other options? I don’t think I’m presenting to you a false dichotomy. Based upon the atheistic viewpoint, it seems that you must believe either that matter came from nothing or matter exists eternally. It’s interesting how you say you have no idea, yet you are certain that I’m deluded so much so that you declared yourself to be an atheist. How does that follow? I suppose you could claim that you “lack a belief”. But again, you shouldn’t call yourself an atheist if you lack a belief on such a crucial question.

Stan-That question, for my money, contains the answer to yours -- certainty is only obtainable for those things for which we can define certainty.

The problem is that you must be certain to even make this very statement! This is what our entire discussion is about!

Stan-That is, the "Law of Non-contradiction" dictates that we can say, with certainty, that if a given thing is 'not-A,' then it is not 'A.'

But on what basis can you say something “with certainty”? I’m trying to get at what your atheistic foundational basis is. Given atheism, why does A not equal non-A? Given time, matter, and chance, how do logical absolutes appear? How could they have “developed” or “evolved”? If logic evolved then it must still be evolving and thus changing. What you have is subjective logic which is another way of saying it’s relative to each individual.

If logic didn’t evolve or develop over time, then it must have always been there. But, given atheism, how is that possible in a materialistic, atheistic universe?

Stan-It does not, however, follow from this law that we can say with certainty that there is or is not a deity, much less what doctrines or attributes that deity espouses or exhibits.

Well Stan, we’re not done yet, so look alive. There’s a bit more to the argument. If logical absolutes exist, they exist in the mind and not in matter. They are not physical entities that can be looked at in a test tube.

One can’t test the laws of logic in a lab nor could one test them using the scientific method because one would have to assume them as true to begin with. Yet scientists use them all the time to verify their science without any justification. Therefore, logical absolutes exist without any scientific verification. You use them all the time. Yet I thought that atheists only believe those things that have scientific empirical proof? Guess not.

If logical absolutes exist, then they are absolutely true for all times and for all people and are therefore transcendent. Go a billion years into the future and they’re still true; go a billion years back in time and they’re still true. If you disagree with that, then you believe logic is subjective and relative which means that you couldn’t prove anything.

They exist independent of humankind and they must also be immaterial, transcendent, and cannot be scientifically verified with empirical proof. Atheism can’t account for this. Theism can. Logical absolutes are a reflection of an absolutely perfect mind. Since logic exists in the mind and is immaterial, it must be based in something absolutely perfect and immaterial. This is what I would call God.

Atheism cannot account for logical absolutes. Given atheism, absolutes would be impossible and we would be left with subjectivity and relativism which would mean we couldn’t actually prove anything (including this statement). That’s my point.

Now, how do I know it is the Christian God in particular? I would need to support this argument with others in order to build a solid case. For example, there are teleological arguments, cosmological arguments, moral arguments, ontological arguments, arguments from experience, archaeological arguments, arguments against other world religions, arguments for the resurrection of Jesus, etc. I don’t have hours and hours of time to unpack these but plenty of great people have done so.

Adding all of these together, I am convinced that the Christian God exists. Therefore, I actually have a reason to spend time debating and discussing these things with people. You have no reason. Que sera sera….it doesn’t matter. It shouldn’t matter to you. But somehow this does matter to you so much so that you are willing to spend your time debating it.

tinyurl.com/Atheistsdebunked

Biblical Logic

Reynold challenged: If your [G]od is the basis of logic then please show that. List the bible verses where the laws of logic are laid down.



Until then, you've got nothing. (emphasis added)

OK, with the help of God's Word, Dr. Greg L Bahnsen, and Dr. W. Gary Crampton I will attempt it.

From the very first verse in the Bible, Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", necessitates the validity of the most fundamental law of logic: the law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A)

1 Corinthians 14:33 states that "God is not the author of confusion" God is a rational being. The Lord God of truth (Psalm 31:5).

John 1:1,14 emphasizes the rationality of God the Son. Jesus Christ is called the "Logic" of God. "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" (the English word "logic" is derived from the Greek logos used in this verse). Logic is as eternal as God Himself because the Logos is God. God and logic cannot be separated; logic is the characteristic of God’s thinking.(1)

"Moreover, because Christ is the Logos who “gives [epistemological] light to every man who comes into the world” (John 1:9), we are to understand that there is a point at which man’s logic meets God’s logic. In fact, John 1:9 denies that logic is arbitrary; it also denies polylogism, i.e., that there may be many kinds of logic. According to John, there is only one kind of logic: God’s logic. And the Logos gives to every image bearer of God the ability to think logically." (Crampton)

Exodus 4:11 says God gave us the ability to converse rationally with our Creator. The noetic effects of sin hinder man's ability to reason correctly. Although Christians are set apart from Atheists. (Colossians 2:8,Romans 1:21, John 17:17)

It is not the laws of logic that are affected by the Fall, it is man's ability to think logically that is so affected. The laws of logic are eternally fixed in the mind of God. They cannot be affected; they are eternally valid. Logic is fixed and universal; it is necessary and irreplaceable. This is why Atheists cannot account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic.

Dr. Bahnsen said: "If you fail to submit presuppositionally to God self-attesting, authoritative word, then you shall be "double-minded: and unstable on all your ways, driven by the wind and tossed about (James 1:5-8). Instead of being driven by the "Wind" of God's "Spirit," you will be carried about by every wind of doctrine through the cunning of humanistic thought and craftiness of error(Ephesians 4:13-14)...God's veracity is the ultimate standard for our thoughts. (Romans 3:4)"

No man is in any position to reply against it (Romans 9:20)

It is well to follow the example of the Jews of Beroea, who "were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17:11). Why didn't they immediately accept what Paul and Silas were saying? Because the Bible says we should prove a doctrine before we let ourselves be convinced by it (Proverbs 14:15,1 John 4:1,Ephesians 5:8-11, Philippians 1:9-10).

While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason.

Christianity offers a cohesive worldview whereby we do have an objective standard so when somebody tortures you; rapes you; kills you; we can say, No, that is wrong. It's not just personal preference, it's objectively wrong. We do have a revelation to the origin of life. Life doesn't come from non-life, life doesn't come from matter. Life comes from a Creative being called God. Christianity has all the answers and everything you need to live life, not just practically but rationally.

Update:

Law of Identity--Exodus 3:14
Law of Non-contradiction--Genesis 1:1
Law of Excluded middle--Luke 11:23

Crampton added: Logic, then, is embedded in Scripture. This is why Scripture, rather than the laws of logic, is selected as the axiomatic starting point of Christian epistemology. Similarly, God is not made the axiom, because all of our knowledge of God comes from Scripture. "God," as an axiom, without Scripture, is merely a name. Scripture as the axiom defines God.


bit.ly/Bibleislogic

Loss of the Debate

I believe that there is no monster of Loch Ness -- although I concede that I could be wrong. If you were honest, you would also concede that you could be wrong....But you claim that the flowers and trees are "revelations." The existence of nature does not establish a god, let alone yours specifically. I am also aware that you claim your holy book. But other religions claim theirs. (emphasis added)

Dr. Bahnsen rhetorical comeback hits the mark. Suppose a basketball player, say Michael Jordan, beats every worthy opponent in one-on-one basketball games. He can justifiably claim to be the best individual basketball player in the world. Suppose further that another jealous (and peevish) basketball player who was previously trounced by Jordan resents that he (Jordan) has titled himself "the best player in the world." His comeback is, "just because you have beat every current player does not mean that there is not another one coming who is better than you." Jordan's response can be anticipated; "bring on my next opponent." The theoretical possibility that there may be another player better than Jordan is not a concern to him. In the world of basketball, it is the one who is actually the best player, and not who is possibly be the best player, that is of importance. In the practice of apologetics, things are similar. What matters are actual worldviews not possible worldviews.

Second, while this criticism is of no practical value to the non-Christian, it would be, nevertheless a serious criticism of TAG if correct. The reason is easy to see. If there are an infinite number of worldviews and TAG only refutes a small slice of them, if one may speak this way, then it has not established that Christianity is the necessary precondition of human intelligibility. That is, even granting that TAG demonstrates the absurdity of all actual worldviews, it does not follow that all possible worldviews are likewise absurd.

Bahnsen's comeback is to place the one who makes this move on the horns of a dilemma (actually a "trilemma"). The "unbeliever either (1) implicitly assumes the Christian's presuppositions, (2) considers it a mystery that not everything is mysterious or nonsensical, or (3) offers a worldview in which words and reasoning are meaningful."[36] On (1) the imaginary opponent loses the debate. On (3) the Christian proceeds to refute the proffered worldview. As for (2), Bahnsen contends that this is tantamount to acknowledging defeat. He then considers the possibility of one making a blind leap of faith; one who "hold[s] out the hope that someday, somewhere, someone will furnish an adequate autonomous worldview to protect unbelievers against the compelling rationality of Christianity."[37] This, he says, is identical with (2) and since this is acknowledgment of defeat, the opponent loses the debate.

Atheism is Definitely a Religion!

I am posting this to eradicate any confusion that "Not collecting Stamps" must indeed be a hobby since I just found out that atheists are instructing to be effective Evangelists.

Presented, of course, by the dingle berries over at Atheist Experience that has always denied that atheism is a religion. Yea, riiight.

Incidentally, I guess these are all true also:

- "bald" is a "hair color" (Bald is a hair style)
- "off" is a "television channel" (Off is a choice)
- "abstinence" is a "sex position"

In the past I have said that Atheists are organizing as a religion. Then I posted something about a Court decision that said that Atheism is a religion! Then we all read the article about Richard Dawkins when Carl Packman said "Dawkins, in choosing a form of firebrand fundamentalist atheism over the discipline science, is no longer the champion of reason but rather a kind of evangelical against religion"

A while ago, Atheists organized and declared war, they started to campaign on buses. I also said this should be a wake up call for us Christians to fight back.

So it's time to WAR! If you want to fight for souls, then bring it on! Bring your "A" game. You don't have a fighting chance to takes souls away from God. They are His for the keeping. Echoed by John 10:28. We will continue to preach the Word in season and out of season. (2 Timothy 4:2) All the Glory will go to God and Satan and his cronies, such as yourselves, will be cast into the eternal fire.

Perhaps the most terrifying passage in the Bible describing Hell says that men will "drink the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night." (Revelation 14:10-11)

It's not too late even. That is how merciful God is. Even in your pure wickedness against God, He wants to see you repent of your ways and come back to Him. We all do. Stop fooling yourselves to think that Atheism is not a Religion. At this point you are being quite silly. Atheism is Definitely a Religion!

tinyurl.com/AtheismReligion2

Foreordination and Human Responsibility

This is one of Dr. Greg Bahnsen's lectures for us. Pass the popcorn, this should be good.

https://t.me/DebunkingAtheistsSB/19090


I will remain hopeful you will listen to all of this lecture, but if it's too long go to the 60 minute mark and listen from there.


Bit.ly/Foreord

Worldviews in Conflict

To assist myself grasping worldviews, and just another step in the process, in getting to know a brilliant man named Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen. I think my addictive personality is showing. These are simply fascinating to me.

bit.ly/worldviews

Mystery of Life Unlocked

I love this very interesting, honest, and fair presentation on the origins of life. These are the sorts of things that needs to be presented in the public schools to encourage thoughts instead of the current curriculum.

To consider any of these people dumb or misinformed would be intellectual suicide on your part. I really enjoyed Dr. Dean Kenyon's very intellectually honest testimony on his "Biochemical Predestination" hypothesis that was peer reviewed and accepted widely by the scientific community only to be rejected by Dr. Kenyon himself. Now, I fully understand later he tried to downplay Creationism to make it more palatable by calling it ID, which backfired in court. Moving on.

Proteins self assembling sounds wonderful to someone with atheistic presuppositions. But, to risk self preservation and to admit to his "intellectual breaking point" on his own theory was admirable.

Evolutionary theory artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. The cause of intelligence. This is why they pigeon hole themselves and scientists often wear, with pride, the title of metaphysical naturalism. Does anyone now see the dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this?