Ron, Christian apologist and blogger: Gary, it’s simply fallacious to appeal to scientists to deny God, especially when inductive inference presupposes that which atheism cannot account for, like the uniformity of nature and the universal, abstract laws of logic, which are invariant in nature. But aside from the obvious, we don’t need to begin with creation. We can begin with the concepts of necessity and contingency as they relate to the possibility of God and possible world semantics. Or, if you prefer, we can instead begin with propositional truth bearers and try to see how atheism can give an account of them. But since you mentioned creation, I’ll play along.
If time isn’t created, then it’s eternal. If time is eternal, then to arrive at any point in time would require an infinite amount of time to transpire. An infinite amount of time cannot transpire. Therefore, either time is created or else you don’t exist at any point in time. Gary, I’m not your fundamentalist dad.
Gary: Who said anything about scientists denying God? What I said was that no consensus exists among scientists as to the origin of the universe. I have never denied the existence of a Creator God. I have seen good arguments both for and against the existence of an intelligent designer, but since the experts are undecided, I remain undecided. Now, would you kindly present good evidence for the existence, at this very moment, of your god, Lord Jesus, the resurrected Christ?
Ron: ”I have never denied the existence of a Creator God.”.
Actually you have. You claim to be agnostic. The professing agnostic’s claim is not that God does not exist but that God’s existence is unknown or unknowable. Therefore, as a professing agnostic you presuppose a god who has at best concealed himself, which is an outright denial of the God who has revealed himself (and must be known if anything is to be known), making the professing agnostic a non-confessing “atheist.”
Gary: Questioning the existence of a Creator God and denying his/her/their existence are not the same. Now, would you kindly present good evidence for the existence, at this very moment, of your god, Lord Jesus, the resurrected Christ?
Ron: “Questioning the existence of a Creator God and denying his/her/their existence are not the same.”
You’re now operating under an esoteric definition of agnostic. It’s called special pleading. Agnostic doesn’t merely mean questioning God’s existence. But I’ll play along just the same because even questioning the existence of God cashes out as an outright denial of his existence if God has plainly revealed himself as a necessary precondition for rational inquiry. Think on that. You see, Gary, in your alleged pursuit of God you deny the existence of a God who makes intellectual pursuit possible. That’s atheism. It’s a denial of God.
As I’ve blogged: “By the nature of the case, the unbeliever imagines that if God exists, he must be discovered through autonomous reason that is capable of functioning apart from God. In doing so, the unbeliever not only rejects a God who must make reason possible – she actually is not even seeking such a God at all! The unbeliever is seeking a god who does not make knowledge possible and has not plainly revealed himself in creation, providence and grace. The unbeliever is seeking an idol of her own making.”
So, you’re a functional atheist. Yet in reality you do know God, though you suppress your knowledge of him in unrighteousness. You live on borrowed capital, Gary. Your worldview cannot account for this discussion. How do other minds, linguistic tokens, truth and rational interchange comport with the presuppositions of atheism?
“Now, would you kindly present good evidence for the existence, at this very moment, of your god, Lord Jesus, the resurrected Christ?”
If Jesus is the Son of God – one substance with the Father, equal in power, honor and glory, then any sound proof of God’s existence proves the substance of Christ. That’s simple transitive logic. What I suspect you’re after is proof of the resurrection of Christ, not proof for God. However, until you admit to yourself God’s existence, which too is provable, you’ll never receive proof for the resurrection. After all, apart from the existence of God the miracle of the resurrection is unintelligible (but so is ordinary providence apart from God!). The problem is not proof but rather what you’ll accept as authoritative.
Gary: Do you or do you not have good evidence that Jesus of Nazareth is alive and well today? It is very clear that you would prefer to discuss philosophical theory, logic, and metaphysics, but I prefer to discuss Jesus of Nazareth. How about it, Ron?
Ron: Feel free to drop me a note through my blog when you have a response to God’s mind being the necessary precondition for the laws of logic.
If propositions exist, they exist in minds
The laws of logic are propositions
Therefore, the laws of logic exist in minds
True propositions exist
Necessarily, the laws of logic are true propositions.
Therefore, the laws of logic exist in all possible worlds
Not all possible worlds have human minds
Therefore, a necessary mind exists
Obviously, the form of the argument is valid. The argument is sound if none of the premises are false. If none of the premises are false, then God is the necessary precondition for logic: No God, then no logic. Logic, therefore, God.
Gary: Yes, Ron, I realize that you would very much prefer to discuss philosophy, metaphysics, logic, or any other topic—except the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth is alive and well at this very moment.
Dear Readers, Ron’s repeated dodge of this topic should tell us all something about the strength of the evidence for Ron’s belief that the hemorrhaged blood of an executed first century peasant grants him life after death in a fantastical Never Neverland located at the edge of the cosmos.
Ron’s very sincere but delusional belief is irrational and silly to anyone not raised in a Christian culture. Ron knows how ridiculous his core beliefs are to educated non-Christians, so to avoid discussing virgin births, water walking, and corpse reanimation, Ron repeatedly attempts to redirect the conversation away from these preposterous superstitious claims by creating elaborate smoke screens made of sophisticated sounding philosophical/logical/metaphysical arguments. But these arguments are nothing more than desperate, pathetic attempts to make his ancient superstitions more respectable to modern, educated people.
A sophisticated superstition is still a superstition, Ron. No philosophical or logic-based argument is going to convince us that virgins can birth man-gods or that brain-dead corpses can levitate into the clouds. Your beliefs are silly and preposterous, Ron. Open your eyes. Embrace reason, science, and rational thinking.
End of post.