Debating an Atheist
Debating an Atheist
I will be debating a former-Christian-turned-atheist on a webcast this Wednesday night, from 7:30 to 9:00 (Pacific Time). Information is here:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/counselher ... ristianity
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/counselher ... ristianity
Re: Debating an Atheist
Sweet! Will be tuning in to this one.
Re: Debating an Atheist
Not me. Steve`s great but getting up at 4AM for it is a little too challenging before a workday...Will be tuning in to this one.
Re: Debating an Atheist
Where do you live, Ian?Not me. Steve`s great but getting up at 4AM for it is a little too challenging before a workday...
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Debating an Atheist
I live in Switzerland, Paidion. Which warrants a
Re: Debating an Atheist
I think Truman sounded like someone addicted to certainty. Since life doesn't offer absolute certainty as an option... he has to create it out of thin air by insisting on a consensus, on the craziness of other views, etc. It seems to me that Truman wants to believe that Christianity has been destroyed so that he can feel certain that it is not true. The myth of certainty... and the quest for certainty... is, in my opinion, one of the strongest forces in America today.
I believe we can have an increasing confidence in our faith, but I do not think certainty is possible or even preferable. I'd rather trust my wife, for instance, than implant a computer chip in her brain.
I believe we can have an increasing confidence in our faith, but I do not think certainty is possible or even preferable. I'd rather trust my wife, for instance, than implant a computer chip in her brain.
Re: Debating an Atheist
Great show Steve! I enjoyed the exchange of ideas and would like to point out that Truman unknowingly proved the very thing he was arguing against. Allow me to demonstrate:
1.) Truman made many appeals to absolutes: By arguing that one worldview is superior to another, you have to appeal to a fixed, universal, and unchanging standard that can be demonstrated. This involves absolutes that his materialistic worldview cannot account for. Truman must borrow from the Christian worldview to even make his point. The moment he says that Christianity is false, he condemns himself by his own standard, because if absolutes do not exist, he can't be certain about his own conclusions.
2.) Truman hangs his entire worldview on an appeal to logic, which is metaphysical: Logic is not a natural substance that can be measured and weighed on scales. You can't x-ray a skull and find logic, thus it is a metaphysical concept. Truman has to admit that his own worldview is fatally flawed from the start, because it assumes things that it can't logically account for, even logic itself!
3.) Lastly, Truman has to depend on the uniformity of nature to make his case. The foundation of all science is that things can be tested and demonstrated to be true. In order to test something, you must assume that nature is arranged in such a way that is uniform and fixed. The Christian can account for such by appealing to God's word(Gen 8:22), Truman, on the other hand, must once again borrow from Steve to make his own points.
He also made mention of things that involve morality, but I won't go into that right now.
1.) Truman made many appeals to absolutes: By arguing that one worldview is superior to another, you have to appeal to a fixed, universal, and unchanging standard that can be demonstrated. This involves absolutes that his materialistic worldview cannot account for. Truman must borrow from the Christian worldview to even make his point. The moment he says that Christianity is false, he condemns himself by his own standard, because if absolutes do not exist, he can't be certain about his own conclusions.
2.) Truman hangs his entire worldview on an appeal to logic, which is metaphysical: Logic is not a natural substance that can be measured and weighed on scales. You can't x-ray a skull and find logic, thus it is a metaphysical concept. Truman has to admit that his own worldview is fatally flawed from the start, because it assumes things that it can't logically account for, even logic itself!
3.) Lastly, Truman has to depend on the uniformity of nature to make his case. The foundation of all science is that things can be tested and demonstrated to be true. In order to test something, you must assume that nature is arranged in such a way that is uniform and fixed. The Christian can account for such by appealing to God's word(Gen 8:22), Truman, on the other hand, must once again borrow from Steve to make his own points.
He also made mention of things that involve morality, but I won't go into that right now.
Re: Debating an Atheist
Hey Matthew!I think Truman sounded like someone addicted to certainty. Since life doesn't offer absolute certainty as an option... he has to create it out of thin air by insisting on a consensus, on the craziness of other views, etc. It seems to me that Truman wants to believe that Christianity has been destroyed so that he can feel certain that it is not true. The myth of certainty... and the quest for certainty... is, in my opinion, one of the strongest forces in America today.
I believe we can have an increasing confidence in our faith, but I do not think certainty is possible or even preferable. I'd rather trust my wife, for instance, than implant a computer chip in her brain.
I take exception with the highlighted above. I think that we can have absolute certainty about many things.
Re: Debating an Atheist
I also posted this on the media section of the forum in case anyone missed it or can't find it elsewhere:
http://theos.org/media/category/146/
Jarrod
http://theos.org/media/category/146/
Jarrod
Re: Debating an Atheist
Heybrody196 wrote:Hey Matthew!Since life doesn't offer absolute certainty as an option...
I take exception with the highlighted above. I think that we can have absolute certainty about many things.
Like what?
We may be using the term 'certainty' differently. I'm not sure.
I can't be absolutely certain, for instance, that there is a God. I believe I know God, but there is always the possibility that I am delusional. I can't even know for certain that everything I call existence is not part of some computer program like The Sims. I can't be absolutely certain that my wife is faithful b/c I'm not with her every moment of the day (and even if I was... I wouldn't know what's going on in her mind each moment).
I live based on things that I consider highly likely to be true based on Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience. The more important an area (faith, family, friends), the more factors there are involved. This makes absolute certainty impossible. I may be able to be certain that 1+1 equals 2. But, then again, who cares? It is only pretty much insignificant things that even come close to absolute certainty.
This is not a bad thing. We are not primarily part of a religion that promotes submission to a creed, but the following of a person. Relationships are risky to some degree, but the most valuable things in the world and therefore worthy of risk.