Testing The Christian Apologists

You continually accuse me of this, yet have no proof. Why not just ask me? I won't lie.

Guilty. I do question whether that is meant for everybody. I certainly know of nobody who has done so. I will study more. What else am I failing to obey or follow? I can use constructive criticism--even from a guy who limits the character to the book.
******************************************
Getting back to the apologists, Frank Turek has a new podcast which has some interesting exchanges on college campuses with todays younger generation of atheists.
I Dont Have Enough Fith To Be An AtheistI listened to this one today: He seems honest enough in his arguments. Of course his challengers have some good replies also. I am searching for a transcript...I know you cant listen at the public library. And yes, Im trying to put what I learn into my own words...but it takes time to get the essence of his argument.
Do atheists just lack a belief in God?
He answers the following questions:

Is lacking a belief in God" the proper and helpful definition of atheism?

​

What questions can you ask atheists who say this?

​

By what moral standard are atheists judging God to be immoral?

​

Why atheists have a burden of proof just like Christians(this was helpful)

​

Why Christianity is the best explanation of why reality is the way it is.

​

Personally, I learn a lot through our exchanges here at EvC. I am not trying so much to find the proper questions to ask Atheists, but I do want the apologist to be tested by them and see if he is debating in good faith.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

​

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

​

As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.
? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

The point is that these writers actually met God in some way or fashion. They were not simply imagining him, as you might a mugwump.

You have an evidence-based argument that does not address nor touch upon belief except to say that nobody actually has a handle on the character of GOD. Christians, on the other hand, (your "club" notwithstanding) believe that GOD can be known through the character of Jesus Christ. Perhaps in OT times, many "Gods" were imagined, none known, and all attempted to be defined and described. We can throw the culturally limited coyote in with that lot. The whole basis of Christian belief, however, is One God (God of very God) described through Jesus Christ. Can you make a valid argument that people invent various "Jesus" Characters just as they invented "god characters" in the OT? If so, I think we are closer to defining God through Jesus and to a lesser extent through the additional writings of Paul, Peter, and John. (Redactors notwithstanding)

You and I could meet the same person and come up with two different books describing how that character impacted our world view. Take Andrew Jackson. He is described in different ways by those who knew or claimed to know him or of him. Their conclusions were based in some way to their initial ideology and world view to begin with. Different gods serve different purposes to the devotees who describe them. This does not negate the idea that it may be only One (the same One) who has at that point in time impacted their life in any meaningful way.While I dont think that OT authors actually met God the way that we can in todays post resurrection world, but even that is open to argumentation.

There are certain world-changing moments in people's lives that they never forget. Being at the scene of 9-11 or even watching it on TV could be said to be one of such moments. No one present shall ever forget the event. And though they may embellish it some in their later years, it will essentially remain etched as it occurred. Arguably the same could have been said to have happened due to the resurrection. If people simply heard second-hand accounts or made it up, the impact would not transfer to succeeding generations. Additionally, the event would not register as a world view changing moment. And yet it does. For some of us, anyway. Would you argue that many Biblical authors had world view changing moments that led to their writings? Or would you say they simply made it up.

Alex O'Connor is a highly intelligent young man! He is but 18, yet he held his own with Frank Turek, a skilled apologist. What impressed me and many others was the mutual level of respect which both of them had for each other and how the argumentativeness seemed to be a joyful quest for knowledge, truth, and consensus. Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Reviewing his book, found here
Table Of ContentsTypical apologetic questions...I'm not too impressed with this guy yet. Sean McDowell seems more experienced and Frank Turek has some good answers to questions, though I am finding that it all boils down to belief rather than evidence. Turek claims that atheists simply do not want to believe and many wouldn't even if presented with irrefutable evidence. Tureks podcastTangle and Stile have argued that this is not true and is a common claim from apologists. Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

WRONG. You are quick to make judgments. Though you have a right to your opinion (and likely have some prejudice of your own regarding apologists in general) you must first listen to at least one of his podcasts before making any statement. After all, you insist I read the Bible in context before challenging your beliefs and statements.Turek has some valid arguments. In response to atheists who simply say they lack a belief in God and that the onus is on the believers to support the argument, he challenges by asking them to give their explanation (as far as they believe) as to how the universe came about. I cnt simply paraphrase his arguments, though I am beginning to think on my own after listening to the many sides of these faith & belief vs evidence-based discussions.You want to throw anything away that challenges your comfort zone. You think you have it all figured out, don't you? You likely will claim only that you report what the books say and that you rely on logic, reason, reality, and evidence. What is telling, however, is your unmasked disdain for anyone wearing the label of apologist. You are prejudiced against them. You paint the whole lot of them with one broad brushstroke, yet you have no more of an idea than I do. Why must you always be so negative?

And you, Mr.Tangle are just as bad. You all always get on Faith for being so set in her ways and yet you are not providing any better arguments than the ones the apologists make. Until and unless you listen to at least one podcast I will likely disregard everything else that *you* say. I swear you guys are as bad as the Populists. Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

It may be my fault for summarizing it wrong. His arguments are not stupid.You likely will disagree with some of them, but hre we go:

quote:

---

If you read the threads of several of the blog entries on this site, you will see both atheists and Christians charging one another with committing logical fallacies. The assumption both sides are making is that there is this objective realm of reason out there that: 1) we all have access to; 2) tells us the truth about the real world; and 3) is something we ought to use correctly if we want to know the truth. I think those are good assumptions. My question for the atheists is how do you justify these assumptions if there is no God?

​

If atheistic materialism is true, it seems to me that reason itself is impossible. For if mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe that anything is true(including the theory of materialism). Chemicals can’t evaluate whether or not a theory is true. Chemicals don’t reason, they react.

​

This is ironic because atheists— who often claim to be champions of truth and reason— have made truth and reason impossible by their theory of materialism. So even when atheists are right about something, their worldview gives us no reason to believe them because reason itself is impossible in a world governed only by chemical and physical forces.

​

Not only is reason impossible in an atheistic world, but the typical atheist assertion that we should rely on reason alone cannot be justified. Why not? Because reason actually requires faith. As J. Budziszewski points out in his book What We Can’t Not Know, The motto ‘Reason Alone!’is nonsense anyway. Reason itself presupposes faith. Why? Because adefense of reason by reason is circular, therefore worthless. Our only guarantee that human reason works is God who made it.

​

Let’s unpack Budziszewski‘s point by considering the source of reason. Our ability to reason can come from one of only two sources: either our ability to reason arose from preexisting intelligence or it did not, in which case it arose from mindless matter. The atheists/Darwinists/materialists believe, by faith, that our minds arose from mindless matter without intelligent intervention. I say by faith because it contradicts all scientific observation, which demonstrates that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. You can’t give what you haven’t got, yet atheists believe that dead, unintelligent matter has produced itself into intelligent life. This is like believing that the Library of Congress resulted from an explosion in a printing shop.

​

I think it makes much more sense to believe that the human mind is made in the image of the Great Mind— God.In other words, our minds can apprehend truth and can reason about reality because they were built by the Architect of truth, reality, and reason itself.

​

So I have two questions for atheists: 1)What is the source of this immaterial reality known as reason that we are all presupposing, utilizing in our discussions, and accusing one other of violating on occasion?; and 2) If there is no God and we are nothing but chemicals, why should we trust anything we think, including the thought that there is no God?

---

I like that bit about chemicals. Ringo once asked why the universe couldn't originate from chemicals in the beginning...he must be a materialist.

Anyone who outgrows God had a limited view of Him to begin with. More likely you were convinced by some rational argument.

Turek learned much of his world view from the late Dr.Norman Geisler. Critics will mention ( jar) that Geisler was involved in the Chicago Statement On Biblical Inerrancy Geisler was noted (largely by other apologists and Biblical Christians) as a foremost authority. And to be honest, as I delve into this topic regarding the honesty and worth of apologetic thinking in general, I am very much aware of how the critics and opponents of such a world view see it all as. Turek is not my best case apologist by any means. He is quite good, though...based on listening to some of his podcasts. (which few if any of you will bother to do) The world views are totally different and diametrically in opposition to each other.
Does God Exist? (Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens) This was Turek's first formal debate. Some critic wisely pointed out that he was overly ambitious to have tackled Hitchens the first time out. To jars credit, I can support the argument that he was simply out to make a name for himself and sell his book. I respected Dr.Turek for a comment he made about Christopher Hitchens shortly after the man's passing:

Its beginning to look like I will have to attempt to become my own apologist myself since there are certain points in many of these arguments which resonate with me and which I have definite opinions on. Perhaps exercising such discipline will help me in future apologetic as well as practical arguments in my life. Bare with me as I attempt my own apologetic: So in essence you are saying that the concept of God in and of itself is unimpressive, given Gods presumed credentials...right? So, in essence, you are claiming that IF mindless chemicals evolved into intelligent life without the need for creativity or guidance from a Deity this fact in and of itself would be more impressive. Am I right?First let's keep in mind the basic classic apologetic assumption...that humans (through evolution, a "Fall" or whatever...have no innate desire or need of God. Your argument seems to support this attitude. Hawkings classic quote comes to mind:

quote:

---

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.~The Grand Design

---

A Universe From Nothing-Lawrence KraussThus, it appears to me at least that the two worldviews have diametrically polar opposite assumptions. The snake told us that "ye shall be as gods" and in a sense, the materialist world view explains how a universe, mindless chemicals, and eventually humans can and will assemble evidence to explain existence without God. Critics will voice statements like this one from the comments section of Krauss's video:

quote:

---

Science draws a conclusion from evidence and observations where religion makes evidence to fit their preconceived conclusion...

---

Not exactly. If my worldview is correct, we won't ever see God or be able to see God. Thus, your claim that we don't see God is moot. Your statement should read:
We can look inside the brain. Period.
We can see parts of the mental processes occurring (neuron's firing, chemical reactions occurring) - Period.
We can see babies growing from sperms and eggs and the brains, neuron's and chemical's all forming and begin working - Period.
All that can be claimed is that we don't see God no matter where we look.Did it ever occur to you that it might be meant to be this way? That an omnipotent powerful Deity....involved thoroughly in the creative process all around and in us...is so thoroughly and completely unevidenced and undetectable? That perhaps....just perhaps...His existence can only be known through willful acceptance and belief? Not magic, mind you.

I can defend some but not all. Some arguments have no conclusion without evidence and on faith alone. As I delve into the philosophy of the Christian Apologists, I find that many of the arguments are shared among them and (critics say) have been the same for 20 years.If I were to base my worldview on evidence and secular logic, as you do, I would have to be an agnostic or even an atheist by default. In your terms, being a believer is impossible. For me, it is already too late to renounce my beliefs, even if I became persuaded to "throw God away" which is one of the silliest things I have ever heard, to begin with.