You sit down to eat your lunch and begin peeling your orange, when your lunch buddy makes a strange comment. “Why in the world do they call it an orange if it is green?”
After gaining your composure, you realize your friend is likely color blind and unable to see the difference between orange and green. To him this orb in your hand is green and nothing you say is going to change that “fact”.
He insists that the burden of proof is on you. In order for him to believe that this orange is actually orange you will have to prove it. Secondly, he insists that only six colors exist and every other “color” is just a myth created by the greedy tyrants at Crayola. Lastly, he cares little about what others believe on the issue—he won’t believe it until he sees it with his own eyes.
Apart from the discovery of a cure for color blindness you’ll never win this debate. But what has actually been proven in this debate?
By your inability to win the debate your friend has not disproven that oranges are actually orange. Nor has he shown that oranges are actually green. All that has really happened is that we’ve shown that a fruit that is the color orange cannot and does not exist in your friends view of the world.
When Christians Lose the Debate
The above scenario is played out in lunch rooms every day, but over things far more significant than the color of an orange. There are those who insist that the Bible is a bunch of fairy tales and that God does not exist.
Just as the color-blind dude in the above scenario insisted that the burden of proof was upon you, so also unbelievers insist that we must prove that God exists in order for them to believe. They will say things like “if something is true then it must be scientifically proven” even though such a statement itself cannot be scientifically proven.
Furthermore, they will set the rules and standards for the debate. Things that are supernatural must be considered mythological. If they cannot be scientifically proven then they cannot be counted as evidence. They must be seen and observable over time in order to actually be considered true.
Christians will never win this debate.
But again losing this debate hasn’t really proven anything. Concerning the Bible, James White is correct when he says:
…the testing of Scripture’s claims on the basis of a foreign standard, context, or worldview usually lies behind allegations of error.
If you impose a Western or atheistic standard, context, or worldview on the Bible and it doesn’t pass the muster it doesn’t prove that the Bible is false. You’ve just proven that the Bible isn’t Western and it isn’t compatible with an atheistic worldview.
We’ve got to come to grips with the fact that what must happen to the color-blinded man must happen to the unbelieving mind. The leopard cannot change his spots and an unbeliever cannot be won to the Lord through his atheistic worldview. If the leopards spots will change the Lord must do work.
God must change the heart and the mind of the unbeliever. That is the only hope. And the means that he uses is His powerful Word. And so let us whole-heartedly and confidently proclaim that which is of first importance—the worldview-shattering and life-shaping gospel of Jesus Christ.
–
photo credit: Yaisog Bonegnasher via photopin cc
Very good Mike. The presupposition is the truth of scripture before all our arguments. These truths are supernaturally known.
This is the only way religion wins the debate: through obfuscation, confusion, and summarily throwing real evidence out the window while insisting on arbitrary, unsubstantiated standards of truth.
When you change the rules and ignore everything that would ordinarily qualify as evidence, of course it becomes easier to win the debate.
Chris, here is your opportunity. Present your evidence for the non existence of God.
Les, I’m afraid not quite. The post isn’t on arguments for God, but rather about the argument itself, which is why my comment is what it is. But I’ll throw you a small bone since you’ve demonstrated one of the Christian’s favorite rule changes: shifting the burden of proof, a tactic Mike takes a jab at in his post. Here’s what I can and cannot do: I can show you why science increasingly teaches us that God is not necessary. I can show you that even if you could do the impossible and use science to demonstrate the necessity of… Read more »
You know, Chris, I think that we have blurred the line so significantly between science and philosophy that a lot of people fail to differentiate clearly between the two. To study physics, for example, is to contemplate Maxwell’s demon, Einstein’s elevator, and Schrödinger’s cat. These clearly belong as much or more to the discipline of philosophy as to science. Einstein had the brilliance to propose thought experiments that were falsifiable and that have thus far enjoyed some measure of validation. But when you come to Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about the multiverse, what you have there is… Read more »
Bart, A distinction is made between experimental physics and theoretical physics. Theoretical physics seeks to push the boundaries to provide more room for experimental physics. Experimental physics does the work of validating the theory. Some theories are currently more hypothesis than theory – the multiverse certainly falls into this category (and Tegmark’s view of the mathematical universe doesn’t get a lot of credence among theoretical physicists with his unique twist to the multiverse view). A for Einstein, I am puzzled that you speak of his thought experiments. Einstein did not put for thought experiments – he put forth equations. He… Read more »
Einstein didn’t put forth thought experiments? Now I AM puzzled. I’m pretty sure that Einstein put forth BOTH thought experiments AND mathematical equations. My point is simply to challenge your assertion that you can show how science increasingly makes God unnecessary. I’d specifically take issue with the word “increasingly.” Belief in God was NEVER “necessary” in deductive terms (see Atheism, History of), and those items that have seemed compelling to theists in the past are no less compelling today. My point, which I had hoped to make clear, is that there are no mathematical equations existing at the points where… Read more »
Bart, There have long been religious claims about why God is necessary. Science has pushed those claims back inch by inch until all that remains is a very thin ledge. Cosmology tells us how the universe came to be, evolution tells us how we came to be, climatology tells us how rain comes to be, virology tells us how disease comes to be, neurology tells us how insanity comes to be, etc. Things once attributed to God’s hand or miracles or demons are now understood scientifically to one degree or another. This is why I say science makes God increasingly… Read more »
“Cosmology tells us how the universe came to be, evolution tells us how we came to be, climatology tells us how rain comes to be, virology tells us how disease comes to be, neurology tells us how insanity comes to be, etc.” I think you’ve overreached in every case here. “Cosmology tells us how the universe came to be.” And yet this is what you later call the “primary hole” and “convenient gap.” “Evolution tells us how we came to be.” And yet, as you know, (a) a sizable number of Christian theists embrace evolution, (b) there is such a… Read more »
Bart, good comment. Another scientist put it this way…. “Though highly speculative, the Hawking/Hartle model of the “quantum creation of the universe” is an example of the kind of challenge presented by quantum cosmology to the relation between theology and cosmology. If there is not “t=0” in the Hawking/Hartle model, does this ‘disprove’ the theological claim that the universe is created? Actually the interaction method produces a more nuanced result than this. Recall that, according the Hawking, the universe has a finite past but no past singularity at “t=0;” the universe is temporally past finite but unbounded. If we had… Read more »
Bart, Forgive me for thinking I could speak in general terms. Of course we don’t know everything about each of those areas – I had already noted that – but perhaps you miss my point: people once thought – even in the New Testament – that madness and epilepsy were cause by demon possession. While we still have a lot to learn about those disorders, we know they are in fact disorders and that they originate in the mind, not from demonic activity. I won’t belabor the point by spelling out each of my examples, but hopefully the point comes… Read more »
Chris R., It is clear to you, that I’m not as smart as you…. 😉 Yet, you have not come to realize that Hawking’s main defense is circular, so you did miss my point, not Russell’s. Chris, there are some things you seem to get stuck on… One is this “changing the rules thing”. What has made no belief the basis for rules? Is your defense based upon a specific rule set? Also, just as salvation is not well understood in your faith, ..i.e. your confession that you once were as saved as anyone else that has swooned to that… Read more »
Adam, “Mike, I don’t really consider your “kissing” and “mother” analogies as apologetics (at least not in the spirit of 1Peter 3:15)” Okay. so you don’t. That doesn’t mean they are not. The whole sentence reads: “Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in… Read more »
Mike. Look, I’m not trying to engage in some argumentative, perpetual shuck-and-jive. That’s not what I come here for. What I attempted was to say that beginning with the premise that “God exists” was a leap-of-faith that bases your argument (to a THIRD party) on faith. You end up requiring faith from someone who doesnt have it to begin with. Putting “faith” in faith is fideism. Your kissing analogy doesnt really prove anything to a third party. It only proves that you believe it. There have been some really wacky things that people really believed, but that doesnt make them… Read more »
Chris, we probably have different definitions of “proof” when it comes to this subject (direct empirical evidence vs. logical conclusiveness), but I will say this…the presuppositional approach stinks.
Is it presuppositional to presume beforehand that presuppositions are false?
To your question, yes.
Problem isnt with what is presupposed, but the fideistic leap of faith you end up using for a foundation for the rest of your argument.
Adam,
Why do you call it a leap of faith?
Why do you think it is a leap?
When you start with the presupposition that “God exists” then you are essentially starting from that leap. God doesn’t exist because I say he does…nor is the Bible the word of God because the Bible says it is. When you start here you start out with faith, not reason.
God exists because we can reason back logically to his existence based on necessity (law of causality, not “cuz I say so” which is a leap of faith if that is where you start). Then we can reason forward to understand if God’s existence is true based on necessity, then the Bible must be his Word (not “cuz I believe what the Bible says” which is a leap of faith if that is your starting point).
Adam, Many people, ignorant of Christian faith assume that a Christian’s faith is a leap simply because they themselves see no evidence for having faith. Consider the show ~Sherlock Holmes~, Sherlock makes what seems like leaps of logic but as he reveals, they are based on evidence that he has acquired or as he has seen, that the onlookers, like we the audience did not see. That you do not have the evidence Christians have for their faith does not mean that their faith is a “leap”. Of course there is a difference between the evidence Sherlock has obtained and… Read more »
Adam,
Gosh Adam, logically we can figure out that I indeed had a mother. But since I was raised by her, I don’t need to use logic since I have personal evidence of her existence.
And as well, Christians don’t presuppose there is a God, they have experienced Him. They have a relationship with Him. He has made Himself known to them.
Which is why when someone, say like Chris R., leaves the faith and declare that there is no God, we know that he never was a true Christian, for one doesn’t meet God and forget about it.
Mike, I don’t really consider your “kissing” and “mother” analogies as apologetics (at least not in the spirit of 1Peter 3:15). I’m not concerned with a Christian convincing himself of God’s existence by his own experience. That is what you offered. I am only talking about logical proofs of the existence of God based on logic and presented to a non-believer. That is in the spirit of 1Peter 3:15. Question: are you one of those folks who thinks apologetics is largely a worthless endeavor on the part of the Christian? I know/believe that we cannot reason someone to Christ. It’s… Read more »
Chris R., I do get a little tickled when I read stuff like this…. “We know how that initial burst of energy formed into particles and atoms and gas and dust and stars and planets and everything else – we know the stages of cosmic evolution, we know the general timeframes involved, and all the evidence thus far bears it out. We are still missing a few pieces from the first fractions of a second – very important pieces – but most of the story has already been figured out and the process was (1) entirely naturalistic, and (2) runs… Read more »
“and some have demonstrated that they may not even exist”
Care to name names? There was a bit of a kerfuffle when media outlets jumped in to report that Hawking had said black holes may not exist. Lo and behold, it turns out they had rather misunderstood what Hawking was saying. I seem to recall a PhD student coming along later and saying she (I think it was a she) could disprove black holes, but her claims were shown to be full of holes.
Chris R,. yet again you prove my point. In your own land of rules, science seems to make the most sense. I love science. It is fun to experiment and put forth theories, and even see some appear to be sound. My experiments are rather simple and mundane when compared to finite or apparent event horizons. So, I think I understand to some degree your fascination with science. That’s the same spirit that Laura Mersini-Houghton and Harald Pfeiffer had when they were working with the theories that may or may not disprove the various characteristics that Hawking speaks of at… Read more »
Chris J, I think you make a very good point about a “finger in the wind.” Many, many scientific theories have been verified, and others debunked, by a scientist starting with that very method. Serendipity is as much a part of scientific progress as the scientific method. I think even a casual reading of the history of science would support this proposition. I did not Master’s Thesis on “Understanding the Existence of God In Light of New Developments in Quantum Physics–God As The Theory of Everything.” My professors loved long titles. When you investigate what physicists say about cosmology you… Read more »
Jack, you are correct my friend when you say…”Cosmological mathematics recognizes that “infinities” may solve equations, but not without troubling consequences.” That is where the fun is for burgeoning scientists these days. While I Pastor, the work I do to make money is involved in technology. I’ve spent over 30 years in the field of electro-magnetics and have seen that field eclipsed by some pretty cool photonic transmission devices that have benefited from the work done by Mr. Hawking. I used to joke about how many photons it took to accurately deliver wavelengths in some of our underground cabling systems… Read more »
Mike, you’ve illustrated in a very simple way, the real argument.
Sweet breakfast reading!
Ouch Mike, it looks like Chris R. is accusing you of “changing the rules”.
Tis okay. I’m fine with that charge. In some ways that is my point in this article. Christians will never win the debate on naturalistic presuppositions. Duh. We weren’t meant to. But at the end of the day that doesn’t disprove the gospel–it just means you cannot prove it using the scientific method.
By faith a naturalist uses the scientific method as his/her grid for determining truth.
By faith I use the Scriptures as my grid for determining truth.
I’m okay with that.
I agree with you Mike – I am fine with that too.
Well put.
Mike, that’s the heart of the matter.
” … he won’t believe it until he sees it …” It’s amazing how many things are turned upside down in the Kingdom of God. When it comes to Truth, you see it when you believe it! While this piece is directed primarily at the unbeliever and his worldview, I continue to be amazed at folks in church who sit under the Word year after year but never seem to really get it. This also goes for some preachers! The best preachers I’ve known became such after spending years in the ministry to forget most of what they had learned… Read more »
Excellent comment Max! Information is great to have, yet it is the Holy Spirit, the true teacher, that leads us into all truth. The substance and evidence of the faith that God gives becomes much more clear at that point!
Amen Chris. The bummer is that most Christian debate in social media and blogs is intellect vs. Spirit. It’s the stuff that you know in your knower that counts … everything else is just information revolving around the teachings and traditions of men. In that world, orange will always be green. It’s by the Spirit, thus saith the Lord.
Chris R, I haven’t been a reader of this blogsite for very long(a few months) but from what I gather you are an atheist who frequents it. I have read your comments and am really curious about you. Why does an atheist peruse a conservative Christian blogsite? Why does he engage in the conversation? Why does he pushback when the site puts forth Christian ideas? It’s kinda fascinating to me. I’m not sure what the answer is. I have two guesses. One is that you just like to poke people with sticks. But, hey, that’s what the internet is for.… Read more »
I ate a few green oranges in Africa a few weeks back. Sometimes oranges actually ARE green.
Which, of course, totally misses the point of the post.
I once ate an orange watermelon after the guy told me it tasted the same. In my mind, I was thinking it wouldn’t; thus, it didn’t. The power of the intellect can overcome your senses.
I was surprised too, that in Dioher and Nyassia, ripe oranges are green.
The fruit we get here is highly manipulated. They transport it to us in containers pumped full of ethylene gas.
I’m not someone who gets creeped out by that—ethylene gas is harmless, I’m pretty sure…certainly it isn’t in the top 25 harmful things to which we willingly subject ourselves—but the fact remains that our experience of the world is usually at least one step removed from natural reality.
I think you guys are killing my analogy. LOL.
That was the point.
They’re just packing it in ethylene, which is mostly harmless.
I gave up discussing such things with the lost. Except, that is, the things the lost person can, or may be able to, understand.
God is. Romans 1:20.
Sin, righteousness and judgment. John 16:8. And that, if he has been convicted by the Holy Spirit.
Stuff beyond that, he can’t comprehend. 1 Corinthians 2:14.
“Jesus was not content to derive his ethics from the scriptures of his upbringing. He explicitly departed from them. […] Since a principal thesis of this chapter is that we do not, and should not, derive our morals from scripture, Jesus has to be honoured as a model for that very thesis.”
? Richard Dawkins, The Town Idiot
Proof? I was called to salvation, I was called to preach, both callings were irresistible, I wanted to run from them but I could not resist. My freewill did not matter, God is not concerned about my freewill, I cannot even stop my tooth from hurting with my will, much less straiten up my sinful soul with my freewill. God took care of both situations. If you knew me before I got saved, you would say God is real and there is no doubt about it. I don’t have to prove anything to anyone as to the existence of God,… Read more »
Speaking of analogies,
This little mini-debate reminded me of the recent OSU-Wisconsin game for the BIG championship. Wisconsin, representing the non-believers, gained some yardage, but the OSU, representing the Christians, not only gained more yards, but all the points. BTW it was OSU 59, Wisconsin 0.
Dave,
I would appreciate an email [bygrace4012@yahoo.com]with an explanation.
Thank you,
mike
Chris, here is Mike’s email. If you two wish to carry on your debate, please feel free to do so by email.
I’m not interested in hosting it here.
(The original version of this comment got caught in moderation due to links; hopefully my reposting it with reduced links doesn’t lead to duplication.) This is rather aside from any argument about God one way or another (per se), but makes for an interesting side note and is relevant to a few of the items that came up on here. Just yesterday there was a paper put out discussing the possibility of an eternal universe: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html I’m seeing physicists on twitter offering correctives about this article: they are saying the paper this article is based on does not challenge the… Read more »
Actually, the Big Bang is not intact. They are currently working on quantum models that do not require a “beginning” of any kind.
But, then again, I can describe all kinds of features for a unicorn but that doesn’t mean I can buy one for my grand daughter.
I am not suggesting that we should not “be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is within you”…but I have a couple of questions based on several dialogs taking place in this comment stream.
Is it really our “job” to prove the existence of God to the skeptic or scoffer?
Doesn’t God prove Himself as the Spirit calls people from death and darkness into light and life?
Couple more:
Have we become so arrogant that we think that if we can just logically/scientifically “prove” that God is – that rebellion and rejection will cease?
What is it that draws the lost to the Savior? Our ability to convince or the Spirit’s power?
My personal thinking is that the proclamation of the gospel as revealed in Scripture is our “job”, our “role” – it not our job/role to convince or draw people to faith – that is above our rank and pay-grade.
Tarheel,
The whole idea of “proof” is filled with difficulties. You cannot prove to a blind man that a sunset is beautiful.
Agreed. Nor can you convince a deaf man that music is beautiful or that airplanes taking off are loud.
They can be taught the “facts” but they cannot understand the reality – they are utterly and completely incapable of understanding.
Just as the natural man is utterly and completely incapable of understanding the spiritual (regardless of attempts to “prove it”) – to him it is and shall be foolishness….unless and until his heart is enlightened….I think I read about that someplace…Hmmmm….
You probably read it in the same book that documents talking donkeys and people walking on water.
If you could make donkeys talk and could make people walk on water, you’d totally do that.
Tarheel, you are correct, we cannot reason someone to Christ. That is the Holy Spirit’s job. It is above our pay-grade. Two things: 1. We CAN show that the claim “there is no God” is not an absolute truth. We can use reason/logic to show this even apart from Scripture. We do not allow those who would argue against the existence of God to control the entire conversation. 2. Nobody has ever come to Christ without the leading of the Holy Spirit. But also no one has ever known Christ without first having a logical belief in God’s existence. They… Read more »
I am typically sorry when NC State loses unless of course it’s to UNC.
😉
I’m not throwing my hands up on apologetics – I did not mean to convey that.
Interestingly, I just saw something on FaceBook in regard to how our eyes deceive us. One optical illusion showed a series of green, pink, and orange spirals.
The Green and Orange spirals were actually both green.
I’m too lazy to go back and find where in the thread this belongs. I apologize for dropping out earlier. I had three writing assignments due.
The universe has not explained itself. It has given a partial explanation of itself. That explanation is sufficiently insufficient to force people like you, not just people like me, to postulate things outside the universe that are necessary in order to make something like the Standard Theory coherent.
Right.
All the evidence is not in yet.
This we know.
But what we don’t know is how much evidence or how key that missing evidence is or will be in solidifying or changing dramatically the theories already put forth.
Science is incomplete, and those who get their worldview based on incomplete science, or even part of their worldview, show an unjustified bias against the Bible.
Mike, you’re right. Biased against the bible – They hold a presuppositional position, if you will.
😉