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
 

Quantum Nonlocality

He is an evolutionist, a believer in reincarnation, and does not believe in Jesus Christ as God. He wrote the textbooks for students of Quantum Mechanics. So, why am I writing about him? He is a scientist, a professor, that shows evidence for downward causation. That is why.

His name is Dr. Amit Goswami and recently I was drawn to his documentary, now on Netflix, called "The Quantum Activist" If you do not have Netflix, own it as a stream online for a mere $3.99.

I saw some video interviews on YouTube where he made some very good points also and I will post them at the end for those that wish to explore his research more. I was very excited, speaking of "Ah ha" moments, to hear him lay out the reason why the materialist fight and resist, tooth and nail, science that reveals the truth about downward causation that he even refuses to call God, but we know better. The paradoxes in science can be eliminated when this one point is realized. More on that later.

OK, let's make the case. Quantum physics states that objects are not determined things. Objects are actually quantum possibilities for consciousness to choose from. Be it material things, thinking, intuit, etc. Waves of possibilities into a conscious choice into an actual event of experience.

Pro-Life Syllogism

I have leapfrogged this article in its entirety, with a word correction, from Atheism Analyzed by Stan who highlighted it from the original post, the blog, Scientiam Dei:

Here is Francis J. Beckwith's pro-life syllogism:

1. The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community*.
2. It is prima facie morally wrong to [murder] any member of that community.
3. Every successful abortion [murders] an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community.
4. Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong.¹

*Support for Premise 1.


¹ Found in: Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2009) p. 29. Originally from: Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

Stan adds, "To deny that every human - every human - went through the prenatal stages of human life including the division of cells and all embryo stages can be seen as nothing short of dishonest. To claim the moral authority to determine which stage of human life they think is acceptable to [murder] is an onerous claim. The idea that Atheism is more empathetic is absurd, unless the value of human life is discounted in advance, and the Atheist is elevated beyond his actual position as just another human, not a moral judge or determiner of life and death for other innocent humans.

No excuse can defeat the fact that human life always starts with cell division and that killing those cells kills a human life at that particular stage. This is not defeated by any appeal to the condition of the mother, the ability of the embryo to feel pain, or any other rationalized permission to [murder] the human at that stage, and only in a triage situation can such decisions be made which would kill the embryo or mother with moral impunity.

The much vaunted Atheist "empathy" has not been extended to the more than 50,000,000 humans [murdered] by abortion in the United States. "

I am sure you will notice that I changed the 'kills' to "murder" as to be more accurate and truthful.

I found it completely telling that Stan was able to articulate the exact arguments I hear daily, on this blog or in my group, from the Atheists. How can a worldview, a position that stands on an argument from incredulity, possibly be so sure?

This post was almost a Déjà vu as a few days ago I asked in the group: Are you absolutely certain that is NOT a person inside of the woman deserving rights and freedoms as any other person? If so, how are you absolutely certain?

UPDATE: this post is on the heals of a new video released just today revealing Planned Parenthood encouraging  Sex-Selective Abortions like China, from Live Action.

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

FUNd Raiser

Who wants to fund me to go here:

American Holocaust!

Since that proverbial "Cat" is indeed out of that bag. Let's discuss it.

May the bridges I burn light the way!

Ray Comfort's newest video called "180" was released and quickly spread over the internet because someone in his organization decided it would be perfectly safe to name the password the same as the name of the website where it resides: HeartChanger

This oversight was not the best decision, and "security" was probably not the focus to be so obvious, but all that glory goes to God for getting the word out and the message across to those that NEED to hear it and get this discussion going. Thanks Ray for the "mistake" *wink. Moving on.

Atheism, A Viable Position?

Matthew 18:19-20

Let's ask Gary, who responds with,

Atheism is not a viable position: Why?

1) It is impossible to prove there is no being having the attributes of power, intellect and morality commonly attributed to the supreme being we call God.

Atheists themselves admit this. Thus having no possible proof of their position, it requires blind faith alone to sustain it. Incredible arrogance is also within them to assume there is no God.

2) It is impossible to use anything at all in the known universe as evidence of no God.

This is self-evident.
Thus atheism has no evidential foundations and cannot by any artifice of language be logical.

3) To claim there is no God requires infinite knowledge of all things, or, sufficient knowledge of the entire universe (and/or multiverse, if true) -which is impossible to obtain in one human life time- to be able to point to reasonable proof.

4) The belief that there is no God is thus based on blind faith alone since no evidence of his non-existence exists.

Yet atheists refuse to believe all evidence of any kind for his existence, therefore they live in perpetual, willful denial of 10s of 1000s of observed realities.

Hurt Feelings?

These days the atheists are acting very sensitive and whining about how their feelings are hurt because they glance at a cross or become offended because someone says the word God somewhere. Hogwash! Should we adjust our standards of living to accommodate their standards of living because these supposedly hyper sensitive people are offended?

Nope! Thankfully to God Almighty, the courts still have some sense to thwart these types of attacks  and the 7th Circuit dismisses the Atheists legal challenge to National Day of Prayer. What I found interesting in the finding is that just because their feelings were hurt DOES NOT mean its grounds for injury.

“Hurt feelings differ from legal injury,” the appeals court said in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Obama.

This is on the heals of a street being named “Seven in Heaven Way”

Christians certainly have to ride the buses with those offensive signs plastered all over that say "There's probably no God". I do not see the Atheists complaining that our rights are violated.  That gets me thinking though, if it was a deliberate act to remove rights of others, like these Atheists themselves are doing, there might be a case. We have more of a case then the Atheists because we are expressing ourselves, the Atheists are literally ATTACKING our expressions and freedoms. 

Dr. William Lane Craig's Fanboy

Is there any wonder why I love Dr. William Lane Craig and many Atheists despise him? I can see why now y'all call him names and attempt to discount him. He is, quite literally, dangerous to your beliefs and religion. God has certainly blessed this man. Wow, that just had to hurt. His cuts run deep, although I doubt this will be acknowledged by any Atheists. These 5 points would be a good poster on my wall.

5 things that cannot be scientifically evidenced, but we're all rational to accept:

1. Logical and mathematical truths, science presupposes logic and math.
2. Metaphysical truths. Like the universe was created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age.
3. Ethical beliefs and statements of value
4. Aesthetic judgments. Beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven
5. Science ITSELF cannot be justified by the scientific method. Its also permeated with unprovable assumptions.

Are Atheists Being Targeted?

Are Atheists in a Filter Bubble of sorts? Possibly! That is why its important for Blogs like this one. We have even noticed that Google is dropping certain comments entirely here, even mine. They're not even thrown into Spam (that only Google decides what is or what is not).

Google we're watching you closely.

Can you imagine a world where all the tools needed for critical thinking are filtered out and erased? How can we make informed and educated decisions, with the informed and educated part removed and filtered out? Shame on you Google. Please change and STOP BEING EVIL!

Patty just said, "Reminds me of Wall-E. How soon we will just be fat blobs that get fed and moved along on conveyor belts being entertained by fluff TV."

How horrible of a thought that is. Just misinformed Atheists blindly on a conveyor belt heading to Hell. Keep searching and discussing with real people, not bot algorithms! We're here for you.

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:

What a Loftus!

Just noticed an article, that John wrote for a website, called "Top 10 Misconceptions About Atheists"

I addressed the points already there in the article comments, but I thought I would just re-post them here to have a reference to them for a later date if needed, you know for future dogma. Enjoy.

10) Maybe not, but you cannot claim its morally wrong to do so. If you do you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs. Google "atheists eat babies"

9) But LaVeyan teachings are based on individualism, self-control, and "eye for an eye" morality. Certainly not a literal worship of any being other than the self. That would be defeating the whole purpose of the Satanic Bible in the first place. Atheists do worship the same god as Satanists and that is self.

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.

Predestination for Atheists?

A while ago Stan, the Half-Truth Teller claimed "It's funny, really, that among the few philosophical points on which many atheists and theists can agree is the notion of predestination...predestination is analogous to Atheism..."

Today he asks "According to [you and Christian theology], did god plan for there to be a hell, populated by the vast majority of humanity for eternity?"

We were discussing a few days ago about the order of God's choices. So it might be interesting then to explore things further to understand Atheists viewpoints in relationship to predestination.

A couple of terms that needs to be fleshed out, infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism which are terms used to describe differences of the perceived order of God's work in salvation.

In infralapsarianism the order is as follows: 1) God created, 2) God permitted the fall, 3) God elected some out of this fallen state to be saved, 4) God provided a Redeemer for the elect, and 5) God sent the Holy Spirit to apply redemption to the elect.

In supralapsarianism the order is as follows: 1) God elected some to be saved and some not to be saved, 2) God created, 3) God permitted the fall, 4) God provided a Redeemer for the elect, and 5) God sent the Holy Spirit to apply redemption to the elect.

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.