Tag Archives: naturalism

Is the bible primitive fabrication. just because in it are account of a talking and the virgin birth…

UNBELIEVER : The bible is primitive fabrication. Evidence: Talking animals.

> Because talking snakes, talking donkeys and virgin birth don’t really happen, neither does walking on water

>”a bunch of false assertions” You mean like “The Exodus Happened” “Penguins & Dinosaurs were on the Ark”

MBOFANA Its clear that the unbeliever here objects to the supernatural accounts such as the parting of the Red Sea and the virgin birth. The statements in that objection presuppose naturalism the unbeliever here ASSERTS that if anything breaks physical laws then it doesn’t exist and cannot exist.

Thus in order to show the folly within this theory we must expose the flaws and self refuting nature of naturalism.Here is a refutation of naturalism by Matt Slick  Once we accomplish that task then the unbeliever can longer continue to make use of this false worldview against Christianity.

Naturalism is self refuting. Once you have shown naturalism to be self refuting the unbeliever has no right to continue using naturalism as basis for arguments against the Supernatural claims of Christianity.

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Answering the fool according to His folly on his demand for evidence of Christ ever having been born..

2. UNBELIEVER What evidence outside of scripture proves the reality of the birth, ministry and resurrection of Christ?!! none

MBOFANA Before we even go any further the unbeliever must define evidence, in this case he may demand for historical evidence. He may say “show me historical accounts other than those in the bible where Jesus Christ’s ministry, life & resurrection appear. However, as soon as you show Him such evidence, he will dismiss them just as he dismisses the bible. To him you can never be right, Before we jump to the solution here are a few points worth considering.

1. Every system of learning, understanding, and interpreting man and the universe has its starting point. Biblical Christianity takes all of its knowledge pertaining the origins of the world, what is right and wrong what can be known and not known from within the bible. Science uses and conclusions from repeated experiments/observations to make sense of the world. Most unbelievers will accept that science is the sole basis by which they come to knowledge of anything.

However once questions pertaining things such as what is right and wrong for which science does not have answers, the unbelievers may add naturalism, humanism, skepticsm, rationalism as basis for all other beliefs they may hold. As soon as more worldviews are added, the additional worldviews are contradictory to the unbeliever’s initial worldview and and have conflicting claims, for example: the notion that knowledge of the world can be attained by [ empiricsm] observation by way of the sense of sight, taste, smell, hearing and touch which is the basis of science conflicts with rationalism, which states it that knowledge of how things are in the world can be known without the use of senses.

The pro science unbeliever is an empiricist. Empiricists say that only the senses can prove what is and if it cannot be sensed or observed then it cannot exist, this would mean that our minds, dreams and time do not exist, when this becomes apparent the unbeliever adds rationalism to his set of worldviews since it allows him to come to conclusions about the things that exist aulthough they cannot be sensed, so apparently the unbeliever becomes a rationalist and empiricist, both of which are conflicting.

However when the unbeliever encounters a question ” If the unseen things exist such as the mind, time and dreams exist what makes you say God does not exist?” the unbeliever will immidiately add to his worldview naturalism, essentially this means that Only natural things exist and that all the events in the world are as a result of natural processes upon tangible matter and of course once he says this then he dismisses the idea of God’s existence. However we could ask how then the naturalist came to this conclusion, If all there is, is physical matter then what about morality, and the laws of logic, both of which are invisible? how does the naturalist by naturalism know that murder is wrong?

NATURALISM

If naturalism is true then what everyone else believes including naturalists is not a product of sensible thought, in other words mad people who come up with ridiculous ideas and statements are just like everybody else in that even their thoughts are a product of natural processes and therefore are not a product of their own decision.

If its the case therefore the naturalist cannot claim and declare that naturalism is better than any other worldview since even a lunatic is a product of natural processes just as much as the naturalist. Of course If we asserted that the naturalist worldview is a mere product of natural chemical processes the naturalist will protest!

Naturalists assume that the world and everything is a product on material relationships caused by physical laws, for instance the brain is merely working on the basis of processes involving matter, the question is how do these physical processes produce reason? Why do opinions differ, Why do humans even have arguements, why can’t people have similar ideas as they all have similar hearts, ears and eyes. Natural laws cannot explain why we think the way we do, nor can they explain why we can think logically.

Having shown that naturalism is self refuting the unbeliever may add yet another worldview just so as to dismiss God’s existence he may deploy skepticsim and this means he must doubt everything particurlarly the existence of God, but merely doubting isnt proof that God does not exist and besisdes as a UNBEILIVER he must by that very measure doubt many things even his own existence.

Now we realise the unbeliever has a set of worldviews he makes use of to refute Christianity, first of all these worldviews are self refuting secondly they contradict each other and this is the difference with Biblical Christianity, its a coherent system, self evident. Now, what do we do with an unbeliever who demands for evidence of Christ’s birth, ministry and ressurection outside scripture.

Considering what I have explained above Christianity is based on scripture and since this is the basis of the system and source of all propositions, Therefore The unbeliever cannot demand you to prove Christ beyond your source of propositions! It doesnt really matter Josephus, Tacitus or Pliny the younger wrote about Christ, our basis is scripture if the unbeliever is unwilling to accept evidence from within you first principle then thats not your problem but his.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Apologetics, Uncategorized

Does God exist?

UNBELIEVER

I didn’t say God does not exist! There is no good reason to think that one does because you haven’t substantiated‚Ķ

BELIEVER

What amounts to a good reason and is there any such thing as a good reason and who defines and derteminses what a good reason is? Of course the unbeliever must not proceed if he cant answer these questions.

The unbeliever usually wants a reason justifying the existence of God to be provided on His own terms of unbelief. Of course the unbeliever may be very courteous and appear to be polite but this doesnt even matter, He is living in rebellion and of course this means He is biased or at least His opinion is purely subjective.

The unbeliever demands for material evidence, He wants something that He can touch, see and hear to prove God indeed exists. How do we know this? We know this because he rejects scripture.

To the unbeliever the testimony of scripture is not enough, in fact the unbeliever in all cases never accepts the bible even if he may just grudgingly accept certain parts, He will doubt the rest and that is just as good as rejecting all of the bible, since the bible is the wholesoime word of God its to be accepted as true in its entirety. The unbeliever as we can already see by now will not accept the testimony of scripture and remember that scripture is our sole source of propositions about the nature, charecter and attributes of God.

The bible tells us that by the things that have been created God is known to the unbeliever, but the unbeliever lives in rebellion, so it follows that He will reject the works of God in creation, thus armed with this kind of knowledge pertaining the nature of the unbeliever we must not even bother to bring the arguement to him that nature testifies God’s existence, because the unbeliever is too foolish to understand this, and besides presenting this nature of evidence does not prove the Triune God, only scripture does. Accepting that God is creator pressuposes that He created this very universe by His Word, Jesus Christ who keeps it in the orderly state that it is in by the word of His power.

The unbeliever rejects scripture which is the revelation of God, He rejects creation as testimony of God’s creative power and therefore God’s ertenal omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence, we dont even need to ask him to confirm that indeed He denies God’s power as displayed in creation because the bible already tells us that the unbeliever even though having innate knowledge will deny these truths.

So what possibly can He accept? Nothing! Here is why; The unbeliever has a set of first principles that already reject Supernaturalism since he rejects all or even part of scripture and it is within the first principles that oppose scripture that the unbeliever derives his concept of proof from. In this case its sure that the unbeliever demands a reason thats shows God to be existent only within a framework that is acceptable to Him.

So what is this framework that is acceptable to him? Since the unbeliever demands a good reason that proves the existence of God apart from scripture, That is, the unbeliever is not talking about the the reason, logic of John 1 as we believers would rightly assert that Christ is true foundation of all reason. It therefore means that the unbeliever pressuposes human reason as foundation of true reason and therefore as the sole basis on which he is be willing to accept the existence of God.

Of course the bible already tells us that within man is the innate knowledge of God but the unbeliever being rebelious, supresses this knowledge and refuses to accept this fact as basis for the existence of God. After all in order to know and understand that anybody has the innate knowledge of God, one must accept the bible since its the source of this proposistion that man has the innate knowledge of God.

The unbeliever implies rationalism as a way of thinking that claims to utilise reason as tool of discovering and to deducing an entire system of truth, [ Vincent Cheung, Captive to Reason [ 2009 ] Of course rationalism on its own cannot yield any knowledge because its just but a method that requires knowledge on which to process and make conclusions.

Therefore when the unbeliever demands a reason that proves the existence of God on for the basis of reason alone, Its just plain clear he is not even reasoning at all since how can the mind even make inferences about anything that is not known in the first place.

The unbeliever by human reason alone cannot know anything to be true, Fact is human reason on its own is not a source of any truth but rather its a method of discovery, thus before reason can be deployed they must be knowledge on which reason will be applied.

The believer has a source of knowledge and that is scripture by which God uses the occassion at the time we read, hear or recall scripture to communicate His truth to the rational mind. What about the unbeliever who denies revelation and still claims to have basis for reason? Does he have a self authenticating and comprehensive source of knowledge from which He can deduce a comprehensive worldview?

The unbeliever does not have a self authenticating worldview, He relies on multiple and obviously self contradicting worldviews. He may now resort to his five senses as basis for knowledge on which his mind will make inferences, but again we realise that the senses cannot furnish us with knowledge because “Sense data (the facts of experience) do not come with their own built-in int

erpretation. Rational conclusions cannot come from sense experience alone. Empiricism, therefore, fails as a truth-finding method.” – [ Phil Fernandes, Gordon Clark [ 1997 ]

Of course the unbeliever will keep on bringing more worldviews implicitly or explicitly such as skepticism, secular humanism and so on but none of these can stand the self inflicting nature of their own self contradicting nature.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized