Apologetic Method

Summary On Apologetic Method

Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen

from the book
Always Ready Directions For Defending The Faith

The Nature of the Apologetic Situation:
1. The controversy between the believer and "unbeliever" [*I would think a more accurate term would be "idolatrous denier"] is in principle an antithesis between two complete systems of thought involving ultimate commitments and assumptions. Col 2:3, 8
2. Even laws of thought and method, along with factual evidence, will be accepted and evaluated in light of one's governing presup­positions. Lk 16:31
3. All chains of argumentation, especially over matters of ultimate per­sonal importance, trace back to and depend upon starting points which are taken to be self-evidencing; thus circularity in debate will be unavoidable. However, not all circles are intelligible or valid.
4.  Thus appeals to logic, fact, and personality may be necessary, but they are not apologetically adequate; what is needed is not piece­meal replies, probabilities, or isolated evidences but rather an at­tack upon the underlying presuppositions of the "unbeliever's" sys­tem of thought. 1 Cor 1:20
5. The "unbeliever's" way of thinking is characterized as follows:
a.   By nature the "unbeliever" is the image of God Gen 1:26 and, therefore, inescapably religious; his heart testifies continually, as does also the clear revelation of God around him, to God's existence and character. Rom 1:19, 20, 32
b.  But the "unbeliever" exchanges the truth for a lie Rom 1:25. He is a fool who refuses to begin his thinking with reverence for the Lord Pr 1:7 ; he will not build upon Christ's self-evidencing words Mt 7:26, 27 and sup­presses the unavoidable revelation of God in nature.
c. Because he delights not in understanding but chooses to serve the creature rather than the Creator Rom 1:25, the "unbeliever" is self-confidently committed to his own ways of thought Pr 12:15; being con­vinced that he could not be fundamentally wrong, he flaunts perverse thinking and challenges the self-attesting word of God. Pr 13:16; 1 Cor 2:14
d. Consequently, the "unbeliever's" thinking results in ignorance; in his darkened futile mind Eph 4:17, 18 he actually hates knowledge Pr 1:22 and can gain only a "knowledge" falsely so-called. 1 Tim 6:20
e. To the extent that he actually knows anything, it is due to his unacknowledged dependence upon the suppressed truth about God within him. This renders the "unbeliever" intellectually schizophrenic: by his espoused way of thinking he actually "op­poses himself" and shows a need for a radical "change of mind" (repentance) unto a genuine knowledge of the truth. 2 Tim 2:25
f.   The "unbeliever's" ignorance is culpable because he is without excuse for his rebellion against God's revelation; hence he is "without an apologetic" for his thoughts.
g. His "unbelief" does not stem from a lack of factual evidence but from his refusal to submit to the authoritative word of God from the beginning of his thinking. Lk 16:31
 

Irrational Exuberance

Ydemoc asked some well thought out questions, in such a kind manner they do warrant a response.

>>the truths identified by Objectivist axioms.

Yes, there are self evident truths. As a mere example, even our founding fathers believed this also as "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" The rights are axiomatic. There is a Biblical necessity to deny the fundamental point of moral neutrality here. What failed is southern men thinking that slaves are not people, but property. Their axioms were simply wrong. It was also "self evident" that the world was flat at a time in history, true? So how do we get through axioms that are incorrect? More, correct, axioms and that is the purpose of TAG. 

These points are not flip answers but my attempt to flesh them out in my very limited philosophical education. But, I do not claim to be a well versed philosopher, but an exegete in Scripture. At least that is my goal and focus.

>>For "axiom of existence".  So you presuppose that you exist.
>>For "axiom of identity". You presuppose that you are you.

You're arguing presuppositionally to me here. How can I, or want to, counter that? I guess I could pose that you could be a winged green Spirit in a dream state though, but that is not my argument and just the point that axioms change. Yes, we're creatures. Self-consciousness creatures. How is that accounted for?

"The problem here is that Dr. Copan, like many critics of presuppositionalism, confuses a presupposition of an argument with a premise of an argument." ~~Dr. James N. Anderson

As Anderson pointed out, "the argument identifies a performative inconsistency in the one who doubts his own existence. (In a sense, all transcendental arguments aim to identify a performative inconsistency in the skeptic’s position.) Does it presuppose its conclusion? Yes, in the sense that the argument can be mentally entertained by a person only if that person exists — but that’s precisely the point. This sort of non-trivial ‘presupposing’ is necessarily involved in all transcendental arguments that purport to identify a necessary precondition of rational thought...Once you see that Descartes’ argument doesn’t beg the question in any objectionable fashion, it ought to be clear that neither does the presuppositionalist’s argument."

Atheists Debunked

Or as Dr. Greg Bahnsen puts it, "debunked by its philosophical arbitrariness"


The video was taken down but here is a link to it, even though I cannot embed it. For more argument in this debate watch this:



If you like to read, here is the transcript of the debate.

Here is the closing statement:


So, we seek in 'Debunking Atheists' by lovingly revealing this post's truth to them.

As Atheists often say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You're right. As Dr. Bahnsen says, here is your evidence: When you talk about a claim which, when rejected, undermines the possibility of making intelligible all other claims. THAT is extraordinary! If I reject the idea of the amount of cereal in the world. That claim does not affect on a whole bunch of other claims. It is rather limited. But when you make the extraordinary claim that the philosophical precondition of intelligibility for anything, is based upon that worldview, that is a rather magnanimous thing which is Christianity. That is why the extraordinary claims of Christianity, about the existence of God and the supernatural, have been met with the extraordinary evidence that when you reject it, you undermine all philosophical possibility of making rationality, science, morality, possible. The supernatural if God is the presupposition of the intelligibility of the natural. When you appeal to the natural world and say "it's intelligible", you already assuming the worldview that you're rejecting, as an Atheist.


bit.ly/AtheistsDebunked

Personal Revelations

Reynold said,

>>And no, I'm not referring to the bible. I'm referring to that other "revelation" that you claim to have had.


Look, I cannot explain every personal revelation in my life, a past post tried to list some of the examples, but two that are examinable are the Bible and the nature around us. How do I know this? God revealed it. God revealed that He can be trusted. God revealed this as His work.

>>Why in hell have none of US [Atheists] had this "revelation"?

Oh but you have. You just deny God, His Word, and His revelations. You ignore the signs. No surprise there. Are you seeking God as instructed in His Word. Are you placing Him, in faith, as first in your life as He requires? If not, its no wonder that any personal revelations are squelched. I have hundreds of personal stories that points to God.

I will appease you with one.

It was two years after reading the Bible for the very first time in my life. I believe I was 25 or so. A cranky older woman had a flat tire one Sunday morning and pulled up to where I was working. She barked for me to call a tow truck because she had a flat. She was very short. I said I would change it for her if she had the spare. So, in record time I might add, I changed it. She tried to hand me money. I refused. She forcefully insisted. She was getting angry even. I stopped her and said "If I take your money then I changed that tire for a different reason then I did it for" She stopped in shock, started to cry. She said in her 80 years that has never happened to her. She placed both her old cold hands on my face and said something like "you gave me faith again" whatever that meant. She thanked me and left still crying many tears. It was moving. Is it a mere coincidence that an elderly jaded hardened lady had a flat tire at my place to have some semblance of hope in humanity restored?

But the real kicker to what happened is I saw God for what He is. Love. It moved me more then it moved that lady I believe. I am still in awe as to witness that lady's metamorphose. I still cannot stop thinking of that then cranky woman. I am grateful for that day. I am certain that she will be there to greet me when I pass. How do I know? God is revealing it to me as I am writing this. He is placing unquestionable assurance in my soul and instincts. How is He doing that? I have no clue.

I am sure you have an atheistic naturalistic counter as to what may have happened, but it will be a pointless exercise to convince me otherwise. It would be like trying to convince me that I am a lion trapped in a man's body, or something else just as absurd.

Has anything happened to you that you would be hard pressed to explain it away, even as a mere coincidence?

Atheists Epistemological Lacking

In our continued search to help explain reality to the Atheists, as a public service, I stumbled upon something that was very interesting and rare. It was a systematic argumentation from Van Til's work as well as something from another Christian philosopher named Alvin Plantinga.

Putting these two arguments together as one syllogism, makes the argument for God and knowledge. Also included in the paper was some juicy nuggets of logic that will be interesting to watch Atheists attempt to counter. The paper goes in to lengthy detail behind the entire argument. So, if you want any explanation of a point in question, please refer to the paper written. I am merely pointing to the argument, in its entirety, so we can present it to the Atheists.

Maybe an Atheist can come up with a systematic argumentation of their beliefs for the purpose of accountability of their reasoning. I have yet come across such a paper, if it even exists. It would be quite helpful to flesh out the truth if it were presented to us. Takers?

The Paper:

Purpose Driven Blog

Wem, Atomic, et al,

Atomic Chimp states,
>>"Dan, You don't have to give up your belief in a god, just admit that your BS doesn't work."

By work do you mean to give an account and a reason of the hope that is in me? Because, hopefully, I have done that.

Wem adds,
>>"Agreed. Presupposition fails to convince, and it leads to fatal inconsistencies for its adherents' worldviews."

Well that is not the purpose and you're wrong. As you have been told before, my argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands. As for the perceived fatal inconsistencies, I will quote Van Til in a minute for that.

Freddies Faith Is Dead

In our continued discussions, we are getting hung up on something that I wish to put to bed, and post about to reference in the future when someone says that laws are merely descriptive, not prescriptive, etc.

So it was asked of Freddies Dead, the avatar or description for a real person, "Also, what observation has led you to believe that “A” CANNOT BE both “A” and “not A” at the same time and in the same way?"

Update: At the time, his response to this question was "Here you're asking me to give a proof for a law I suspect may not actually be absolute, lol."

This question is to flush out the logical misstep of this non believer. Its also to help others understand what is actual, fact and truth. That laws by nature are not only absolute (unchanging in principle), but prescriptive.

I went on with, "You see, just the definition of that law implies prescriptiveness – (CANNOT BE, not ISN’T)"

Arbitrary Atheists

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Are Atheists Arbitrary in their Reasoning?

If We Were All At A BBQ...

I was wondering what it would be like if all of us all got together to eat some BBQ and enjoy some good conversation. Well, I got a glimpse of that today, join me. Also, if you ever wondered how a baby from Sye and Ray would turn out, I give you Chad!


[Embeded has been disabled by owner Chad, for some reason]


Just sit back and enjoy. Mike also confirms this quote, "If you believe in evolution and naturalism then you have a reason not to think your faculties are reliable." ~Plantinga

I also noticed that Yaeger's Law was confirmed, yet again.

New Year's Revelation

My "New Year's Revelation" has been a real eye opener for me. It has changed much of what I have believed in the past, and now future, for the better.

In the past, I could not justify the disregard for the Old Testament, the supposed dispensational
structure of God's revelation and dealings believed in dispensationalism, and went on a journey to find that Biblical justification for such positions. I am hungry for truth, after all.

That quest had lead me to various discussions with Christians, and Atheists, about my beliefs and justification for them. The battles won, in part, was because my beliefs were Biblically grounded and my counterparts could not justify their reasoning behind their beliefs. Without boring you with entirety of my very lengthy past discussions, although interesting they (Shea and Moose) were, I want to just point to the conclusions.

Just recently, the beginnings of this revelation came from reading a book by Dr. Greg Bahnsen called "No Other Standard" and Bahnsen argues against some positions taken against the subject of Theonomic Ethics. A term that I never heard of before reading that book, but it was a free book offered written by Dr. Bahnsen, so I was in. It turns out, it delt with this exact subject that I was having with the Christian, Shea, a believer in  dispensationalism, but I didn't know it at the time. Our views clashed and could not come to a common agreement which kept me searching as to why what I know as truth, was so radically different from what I thought was the beliefs of the most common Christian Community.

Many of you know my positions about my limited governments, free markets, and of course Presuppositionalism and so on. I also have many controversial positions held about dietary laws, holidays, etc. Its not the normal positions held by many, if not most, Christians out there. In fact, many Atheists agree with me on many things with one glaring exception, of course.

In my search, (read 'research') I found another term I was unfamiliar with until, literally, this year. Admittedly, it was a little comforting to place a label of what my core beliefs are.

I understand that there are controversial positions within this label, and we will flush them out in future posts. I am satisfied with what I believe in and will explore them more in relation to these labels. I find it quite compelling that I come to my beliefs before this revealed term before it was even known. We must be on to something here.

If I had to make one, my new year's resolution would be to continue my research and post about these things in the future, but I am in bliss, relieved, and at peace as to this new found term for myself, and my core beliefs.

I am simply, an advocate and a believer in a Christian existence, with a mindset and personal Theonomy but not laws demanding it, but man can't do it alone. We NEED the 2nd coming for that fruition. 

25 years of TAG

From: Defending Christian Theism,

"As 2010 draws to a close, it seems hard to believe that it has been 25 years since Greg Bahnsen’s presuppositional apologetic first laid waste to atheistic philosophy in his debate with Gordon Stein. It was in that debate that Bahnsen referred to Van Til’s presuppositional approach as the "Transcendental Argument for God" or TAG. The short sloganized version of the argument is Van Til’s statement that the Christian God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary.

Since that time there has been plenty written about TAG – a lot of it more noise and confusion based on a total misapprehension of the issues involved in the argument..."

...(Read More)

*Note to all:

Thanks for the support, thanks for the discussions, thanks for time spent getting to know one another. I am humbled to how much I have learned in this short year. I appreciate you helping me understand more about you. Thank you all, for an interesting 2010. Personally, I am looking forward to another new year of Debunking Atheists.

Man Up!

I keep thinking about the last post and the devastating story of evil. What makes a man want to be so evil? Why would a man harm others with purpose and malice that is unwarranted? Then just last night I read, to no coincidence, something from Bahnsen that brought things back to this same point I was contemplating.

First, in the last post I quoted Patty who said "Also, if more people truly knew and believed in Christ and lived for him, think of how much less evil would be in the world."

She has a great point with that. If men feared God more there would be a lot less evil. Period. I don't mean those that pose as Christians either. Yes, we all know evil exists, but that is only because of weak cowardice people out there that want to honor evil instead of God. It started with Adam. If he only kept the promises he made with God, we wouldn't be here in the first place.

The Problem of Evil

The conversation has turned into the problem of evil because I mentioned the claim:

God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists.

Which is not sufficient for the Atheists here. Let's readdress it since this is no light matter for any of us. Especially for the tortured children out there, that may even be being tortured by their own parents.

Bahnsen alerted me to an interesting conversation between two brothers and the following rang so true in the sentiments of many Atheists that I know.

As Dostoevsky said best "a beast can never be so cruel as a man"

Still No Evidence!

In continuation of the conversation of Presuppositionalism vs. Evidentialism we see how ineffective Evidentialism is to the atheist, explained by Dr. Bahnsen.

Also, this taps into one of the major points in our Arrogance of Atheism post.

In a past lecture, Dr. Greg Bahnsen said: "As [a Christian] I would say to an Atheist, there is plenty of evidence for God's existence. God has provided it everywhere. God has provided evidence in the stars of the heavens. God has provided evidence in the power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest. God has provided evidence in the intricacy of the human body. God has provided evidence in the course of history. God has provided evidence in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites. God has provided evidence in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection. God has provided evidence in the way He judges nations. God has provided evidence in the scriptures, revealing Himself through the prophets and the apostles. God provides evidence when you look at the wonderful harmony of the Bible written over many centuries by many men. God has provided evidence in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people. God has provided evidence in the life transforming power of the Bible. We can go on and on."

The Arrogance of Atheism

I read something that gave me a good pause.

David Smart pointed out to us and posted about The Arrogance of Atheism on a familiar day to me.

In one of his posts that I was reading, he stated the case in the following manner:

"When it comes to Christian apologetics, there are basically two camps: on the one hand is evidentialism, and presuppositionalism on the other. Please notice that neither of these two systems deny the Atheist his presuppositions and epistemological criteria! (To charge either with the arrogance I speak of requires ignoring the facts.) The evidentialists tend to argue from the same epistemic axioms and criteria as the Atheist, starting from this common ground toward defeating the Atheist’s metaphysical presuppositions (to their peril, as they forget that ontology grounds epistemology). And the presuppositionalists actually enjoy granting the Atheist his presuppositions and epistemic criteria because it’s the very means by which they achieve their end, the self-stultifying death of any non-Christian world view (q.v. the TAG). When a Christian employs either apologetic approach when confronting Atheism, he is not guilty of the same arrogance which so many Atheists are because he does allow the inverse—especially presuppositionalists, who purposefully allow the inverse.

A Conversation With Pvblivs

From a prior conversation.

Pvb,

>> Rather than say "revelation" more loudly and slowly, you could try giving us some specifics of this revelation so that we can distinguish it from you blowing smoke.

It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind (collective natural and special revelation) so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the Truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

>> I want to know your revelation so I can argue against that.

Explain Dignity

We have had many post about the fundamental argument for the existence of God and confirmation of the Christian system.

Bahnsen says in his book Pushing the Antithesis that the naturalistic worldview cannot account for freedom.

If naturalism is true, then naturalists have no reason to believe in naturalism. The naturalists says that all thinking is but electro-chemical response of the gray matter in the material brain, and that these responses are determined by our environment. Human thinking is on the same order as weeds growing. If naturalism is true, then the advocate of the naturalistic approach is only saying he affirms naturalism because nature has determined that he would.

Naturalism contradicts freedom (and dignity). He has no reason for declaring naturalism to be true; he is just forced to say so.

Basic assumptions about human nature lead most deniers to distinguish man from the animals. Or as Aristotle would express it: higher up the "scale of being."

Take funerals to illustrate our inherent sense of dignity. In the Shanidar cave in Iraq, what evolutions claim as "Neanderthal" skeletons have been discovered with a characteristic layer of pollen, which suggests that they buried the dead with gifts of flowers. Even the far left wiki claims, "This has been interpreted as suggesting that Neanderthals believed in an afterlife." So even with evolutionary assumptions, anthropologists acknowledge the idea of human dignity.

Laws in courts is yet another example of the human race's assertion of dignity. Our entire legal system shows our inner realization of human dignity. Is that so within the entire animal kingdom? Lions, for instance, have been known to sniff their dead relatives then consume them.

Respect for the dead as evidenced in funerals and memorials is a distinctly human experience lacking any correspondence to animal activities.

If we are merely advanced animals, why can't we discover any primitive behavior in the animal response to death that "evolved" into our more advanced ceremonies? Certainly funerals have no survival benefit for the species of homo sapiens, as per evolutionary views of animal instincts. Rather funerals point to our sense of dignity and recognition of our personal values, which are wholly lacking in animals.

Idolatrous deniers cannot account for Human dignity.

Bahnsen also made me chuckle as he explained about these extreme environmentalists (tree hungers) who claim respect for all life. "They care for the environment and are kind to all living things. But if that were true then even being a vegetarian wouldn't make sense, for what of the dignity of carrots?"

What dignity, in a materialists worldview, inheres in a collection of DNA strands?

"No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life" claims William Provine, his atheist worldview comes clearly to expression in this statement and certainly precludes any justification of human dignity.

Evolutionist J.W Burrow wrote the intro for a new edition of "The Origin of Species: "Nature, according to Darwin, was the product of blind chance and a blind struggle, and man a lonely, intelligent mutation, scrambling with the brutes for his sustenance."

Bahnsen says "Dignity does not rest on anything in the evolutionary Universe. It defies the law of gravity, so to speak, and just hangs there-if it is affirmed at all. As it has been put, an atheist is someone with no invisible means of support. At best, dignity is simply a human convention. And when affirmed, it becomes a contradiction in the unbeliever's worldview."

The Christian view of man's dignity is affirmed in our Declaration of Independence.


bit.ly/Dignity

Uniform Universe?

How do we know assuredly that the universe is in fact uniform?

"We are wanting the laws of the universe to be such that we can understand them, but there is no reason offered as to why the universe should be like this." (Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity)

If I set out to argue the uniformity of the universe because I can predict cause and effect, am I not presupposing the uniformity and validity of my experience? Cause and effect is accurate reflection of what really happens?

Since man cannot know everything he must assume or presuppose uniformity and think and act on this very basic assumption.

Consequently the principles of uniformity is not scientific law but an act of faith which undergirds scientific law. This, adherence to the principle of uniformity-though absolutely essential to science and scientific method- is an intrinsically religious commitment.

Unfortunately for the non-Christian cosmology, chance involves randomness and unpredictability. The unbelieving worldview requires faith in miracles, yet without a reason for those miracles. Life arises from non-life. Intelligence from non-intelligence. Morality from that which is a-moral. These are faith claims for explaining our world and how it came to be.

The uniformity of nature is perfectly compatible, however, with the Christian worldview. The absolute, all-creating, sovereignly-governing God reveals to us in Scripture that we can count on regularities in the natural world.

(Ephesians 1:11, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:3)

We just have to keep asking "Which worldview makes sense of universals and the laws of logic?"

Can an Atheist justify the laws of logic in his chance universe? Especially a chance universe conceived naturalistically as involving only material things? Once he tries to justify universals and the laws of logic, he steps out of his worldview and into ours. His presuppositions cannot sustain his worldview and cannot account for universals.

**Entirely from [Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis]

bit.ly/UniformUniverse

Self Aware

Many Atheists here like to debate and converse with me. I enjoy it a great deal myself. We have a common enjoyment, to communicate with others. But where does that come from? My question to the Atheist is, do you agree that you are self aware?

The fact that you are talking and debating others assumes your own self-awareness whereby you know yourself, recognize that you live in an environment involving other self-aware humans, and sees value in communication, conversation, and debate between equally self-aware beings. If you didn't you would be admitting that conversing on the existence of God, or any subject whatsoever, would be meaningless.

My next question to you is how do you account for human self-awareness as a fundamental factor of life? Where does it come from? How is it that man is self-aware? Without presupposing God, your worldview is ultimately committed to chance. From the perspective of your worldview, the universe was self-created by chance and is self-diversifying by chance.

In such a naturalistic, materialistic conception of the universe, all must be accounted for in terms of the material interaction of atoms. With that worldview, it forces us to view ourselves as simply matter-in-motion. How can matter be self-aware? Are rocks self aware? Trees? Hammers? In fact, what view of the world makes self-awareness intelligible? Slime is certainly not self-aware, which eventually becomes rational, which eventually becomes moral-and all by the evolutionary mechanism of time plus chance?

In my worldview the personal, sovereign God of Scripture created all things and gave them their properties. He created man in His image, thereby establishing personality and self awareness in us. At the very beginning God communicated with man, speaking intelligently to His rational, self-aware creature (Genesis 1:28-29) and gave him commandments (Genesis 1:28,2:16-17). Consequently, self-awareness and personality are not problems for my, Christian, worldview.

My point is that the very self-awareness of you, even as an idolatrous denier, is evidence for the existence of God due to the impossibility of the contrary.

There are serious internal problems with your worldview. Because of your opposition to the absolute God of Scripture, you must account for reality in some other way then by a personal, rational, sovereign Creator. Simply that your rational is built upon the irrational.

**Of course this argument was taken from the late Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen.

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