See, I’m doing this game project. The great and powerful Fringespace. I love it, I really do. I’m just getting sort of frustrated with the process right now. We supposedly have this really big team, and all of that… but only a few of us are doing anything. I can live with that, I suppose - but it makes getting the gumption up for doing something on it hard, sometimes. Especially when I could be doing apologetics! As you probably know, I hang out in several chat channels - I average 7-8, on a normal day. I hang out in James White’s #prosapologian and #apologetics, on Starlink IRC - #apologetics on Undernet, #hard-light and #fringespace, on EsperNet, #btrl on another server, and #gamedev, on another.

I get to engage in some awesome apologetic discussions on starlink and undernet, constantly - and that is just so much mroe fulfilling than working on a game, most times. Although, really, I want to get this game done. I’m torn, and I’m a bit guilty that I’ve neglected the game - but I can’t stay guilty, because I’m doing something very profitable!

What’s a gamer/apologist to do? I’m going to keep working, but it’s hard to stay focused when there could be an awesome conversation about the deep things of God going on, and I know I’m missing it. I also feel guilty for neglecting my baby here, this blog, for that game - but it’s a very rewarding project, too. I’m just going to have to divide my time up wisely, so that I am doing everything I can, with the gifts I’ve been given. I know I’m good at this - and I want to show that Christians can do things like this as well as anyone can - but I don’t want to neglect God by doing so.

Hence, my ennui.

Posted originally as one of the opening entries on this blog. I’m pressed for time, as you may have noticed, and I feel bad just letting this blog sit here. Some of you may not have seen this one…

So, enjoy.

Atheism

Definition:
Dictionary.com

Quote:

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Language origin: Greek

“a” (negative, negator) - “theos” (god) = “No God”

Antithesis:

Theism - Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. (Dictionary.com)

Self-definitions

* “An atheist is someone who believes and/or knows there is no god.”
* “An atheist lacks belief in a god.”
* “An atheist exercises no faith in the concept of god at all.”
* “An atheist is someone who is free from religious oppression and bigotry.”
* “An atheist is someone who is a free-thinker, free from religion and its ideas.”

Reasons:

1. Lack of Evidence

Example:

The supporting evidence isn’t good enough for him to affirm God’s existence. (agnostic?)

2. Illogical

Example:

Says there is evidence contrary to God’s existence.

3. Non-Issue

Example:

Lack belief in God the way they lack belief in invisible space snails in orbit around Saturn.

Common Presuppositions

(NOTE - NOT universally adopted. The ONLY common belief is a belief that God does not exist.)

1. There is no God or devil.
2. There is no supernatural realm.
3. Miracles cannot occur.
4. There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God’s will.
5. Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable.
6. Man is material.

7. Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact.
8. Ethics and morals are relative

Example Argument

God is supposed to be all good and all powerful. Evil and suffering exist in the world. If God is all good he would not want evil and suffering to exist. If He is all powerful then He is able to remove all evil and suffering. Since evil and suffering exist, God is either not all good (which means he is not perfect and not God), or he is not all powerful (and limited in abilities and scope). Since either case shows God is not all good and powerful, then He does not exist.

Mission: Prove a negative, absolute statement

Your mission, should you choose to accept it - is to state that there is absolutely no god, and that the concept of god is absolutely false -then, to prove this statement: NO GOD =1

First, we have to make a couple definitions. A CANNOT be A and NOT A, at the same time.

To say there is NO God is an absolute statement. So, if you say that there is NO God, No God = NOT A. If you say that there IS a God, God = A. A cannot be A, and NOT A at the same time, remember. So, the mission is to prove that A =/= A - but A = NOT A.

If A = god, and NOT A = No god

A cannot be A, but MUST be NOT A, in order for NOT A to be true.

NOT A and A are not equal, and cannot have the same value - so, we must accept that NOT A =/= A.

In order for NOT A to be a true statement. A MUST be false. In order for NOT A to be accepted true, the axiom of “A =/= NOT A” MUST be accepted - thus, absolutes must be accepted, in order for there to be NO god. No is an ABSOLUTE statement - thus, A MUST be false, and it MUST be accompanied by a proof, for the statements GOD = A , and NO GOD = NOT A, to be logically true.

So, since we’ve established that “No God”, and “God” are mutually exclusive - we’ll move on.

“No God” is a negative value - so, the mission is to prove a negative. God cannot exist, and there must be proof of God’s non-existence - or there is still a possibility of A equaling A.

To prove that A = A, however, is still pretty hard. It’s an axiom, like 0=0, or 1=1. To prove that God = A, requires that Not A also be proven false. So, on the other side, we’re also stuck.

But, we’ve proven that it’s impossible to “prove” God’s existence, or non-existence - and, we HAVE proven the existence of absolutes. So, it’s now possible to use absolutes in our argument,s henceforth. A, forever after, CANNOT also be NOT A - thus, unless you invalidate absolutes altogether, and thus, any scientific method, you’re stuck with absolutes as an axiom. So to accept that A cannot be NOT A did absolutely nothing but prove absolute exist. So, let’s move on.

So, here’s the next question - if a statement is unprovable - how can it be absolute?

The answer?

It can’t.

So, the basic statement Atheism is founded upon is based upon belief, to put it bluntly - yet contains an absolute statement - which, in order to be undeniably correct, would have to prove a negative - something which has NEVER been done in the history of logical thought.

So, in order to back up that absolute statement saying there is NO god, you would have to prove a negative - but, how do you prove that the negative of something which you say does not exist, does NOT exist - without recognizing it’s existence?

On the other hand, any Religion has only the burden of evidence to bear - not the burden of proof - because all religions are based upon faith in the unprovable - not an absolute statement of fact. If you believe something, you believe IN something. You have no need to prove the non-existence of a thing - you just have to prove a thing exists. Also impossible, but not because of logical impossibility - but factual impossibility. Noone, but the God believed in, can know ALL the facts - so, it’s unprovable. There is evidence, of course - which an Atheist can never have - there CAN be no evidence of the NON existence of something - because there would be nothing to see, if the thing which does not exist - doesn’t exist.

Existence is either believed, or disbelieved - but it is never known, with complete certainly.

In response on this post, I was told that arguing for an objective morality was contrary to a recognizance of faith, as faith - in essence, that a logical argument for the existence of objective morality was an attempt to “prove” faith.

The quotes are as follows:

Razor,

Faith, by definition, exists apart from logical proofs. Foundationalsim assumes a preset of basic beliefs - your initial post serves to legitimze this approach by postulating the existene of basic beliefs. Does that not seem circular to you?

I am certainly NOT suggesting that logical exercises are not useful - in most cases they are. However, reducing matters of faith to logical precepts removes the mystery aspect of faith, suggesting somehow that the wonder and mystery of our God can be defined and detailed to the nth degree by our keen human intellect.

I mean no offense, but it smacks of arrogance to me, and brings forth a sickening feeling in my innermost being that usually comes when attempts are made to somehow intellectually legitimize faith through logical science. Faith requires no such legitimization, which is really antithetical to faith, in the strictest sense.

What I find helpful is using logical devices to construct a systematic theology. However, a systematic theology assumes that a foundation of faith already exists - it does not serve to provide logical foundations to faith.

Well, today’s sermon at church was about faith, but only partially. In that sermon, we were given a quote from Charles Spurgeon, which I’m going to use for this post. See, according to Spurgeon, faith consists of three things:

What is faith? It is made up of three things—knowledge, belief, and trust.

Knowledge, chiefly, is what concerns me today. “Faith begins with knowledge“, says Spurgeon. When we have faith, we must know what we have faith in. I cannot stress enough that we cannot have a blind faith. A faith which does not even know what it is faithful for, what it is faithful to, why it is even faithful at all… this is not a faith worth recognizing. So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. This is what faith requires. Knowledge.

Now, let me hasten to say that this knowledge must not be perfect. it must only be sufficient. This knowledge is NOT, contrary to my brother’s assertion, the proof of faith - it is simply the portion of faith which requires us to know what we are having faith in.

Now, this knowledge does not constitute the entirety of faith. We must then “believe that these things are true“. As Spurgeon says: “Believe these truths as you believe any other statements; for the difference between common faith and saving faith lies mainly in the subjects upon which it is exercised. Believe the witness of God just as you believe the testimony of your own father or friend. “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater.“”

Catch that part I bolded? The difference is NOT the amount of faith - it is the object of that faith. Saving faith is differentiated by what you believe in.

“So far you have made an advance toward faith; only one more ingredient is needed to complete it, which is trust. …The Puritans were accustomed to explain faith by the word “recumbency.” It meant leaning upon a thing. Lean with all your weight upon Christ. It would be a better illustration still if I said, fall at full length, and lie on the Rock of Ages. Cast yourself upon Jesus; rest in Him; commit yourself to Him.”

He continues the lesson with this:

“Faith is not a blind thing; for faith begins with knowledge. It is not a speculative thing; for faith believes facts of which it is sure. It is not an unpractical, dreamy thing; for faith trusts, and stakes its destiny upon the truth of revelation. That is one way of describing what faith is.
Let me try again. Faith is believing that Christ is what He is said to be, and that He will do what He has promised to do, and then to expect this of Him.”

Faith does not require proof. Faith does require knowledge. It does require belief of veracity, although it does not require proof of veracity. It does require trust, although it does not require proof of trustworthiness.

Apologetics is an activity which is concerned with clearing away the obstacles to a true understanding of what God teaches, who He is, and what is really, actually true. This is the goal, the object, of apologetics. It is not to somehow “prove” the existence of God - or even of principles. It is an outline of the body of knowledge which, if taken all together, will give you a healthy, Biblical knowledge of the Holy, and what it entails. That is, at bottom, the purpose of apologetics. Not to prove, but to clear away obstructions. Not to argue minutae, but to unblock the way. Not to engage in debate for the sake of debate, but to define clearly the path which must be traveled.

Sometimes, that process is quite involved. It may have to start hundreds of allegorical miles away from even the beginning of that path. Sometimes, it may start with a log dropped right at the entrance to that narrow way. Regardless, the mission is clear. Remove all impedances, wherever possible, to a knowledge of the Holy.

Remember - the first step is knowledge, true knowledge, of what you are to have faith in. Only then can you believe that the object of your faith is true.

(All quotes from Charles Spurgeon may be found at Spurgeon.org, where they are hosting his small book, “All of Grace“.)

A response to this set of questions:

1) Can you prove that objective moral facts exists?

2) Can you prove that you are able to properly apprehend these facts through some source?

3) Can you prove that this source is the true source of all objective moral facts?

Simple Model:

• Objective moral fact claims exist;
• One set of moral fact claims is true;
• Objective moral facts exist.

• These facts can be properly apprehended;
• These facts have a source;
• This source is the source of all objective moral facts.

(Conditional)

• The source itself is the means to properly understand these objective moral facts.

Expanded Model:

Objective moral fact claims exist.

• All claims to knowledge of moral facts are qualitative objects;
• Qualitative objects exist;
• Objective Moral fact claims exist.

One set of claims is true, so objective moral facts exist.

• One set of objective moral truth claims is in accordance with reality;
• To be in accordance with reality is to be factual;
• One set of objective moral facts exist.

These facts can be properly apprehended

Facts are apprehensible;

• If a fact is objective, it is intelligible;
• If an objective fact is intelligible, it is apprehensible;
• Objective facts are apprehensible.

Facts are properly apprehensible;

• Objective facts are intelligible;
• Intelligible facts are apprehensible;
• If a fact is apprehended, it is apprehended properly.

(Note: This is axiomatic. You either understand, or you do not. You either apprehend the fact, or you do not. A word which means “understood” leaves no room for “incompletely” understood. It is, or it is not. )

• Objective facts are properly apprehensible.

Objective facts can be properly apprehended.

These facts have a source.

• An objective moral fact would be communicated via information;
• Information must have a source;
• Objective moral facts have a source.

This source is the true source of all objective moral facts.

• If all objective moral facts are contained in a set, this set is objective moral fact;
• If objective moral fact is supplied, it is supplied as a set;
• The set cannot contain any moral non-facts;
• If it is supplied as a set, it has either one source, or multiple sources which agree in all respects.
• To be factual is to be true;
• This source is the true source of all objective moral fact.

Bonus Arguments:

This source is also the means by which objective moral facts are properly understood.

• The source must communicate these facts to others, if others are to know them;
• Understanding is predicated upon knowledge;
• The source is thus the means for proper understanding of these facts.

< < Further Discussion Here >>

I’ve posted about Subjectivism before. I’m happy with the post, but it didn’t cover all of the aspects of Subjectivism that I wanted to cover, and I’ve had an epiphany of sorts.

If: Subjectivism is the belief that the individual conscience determines the morality of the decision;
Then: The individual conscience is determined to be more important, or more valid, than objective moral truth, or its standards.

Contrasted with:

If: The Biblical Account is true;
Then: God’s Word is Objective Truth.

So, we have two antithetical statements.

If:God’s Word is Objective Truth,
Then: Jesus Christ is Objective Truth, per John 1:1.

If: Jesus Christ is Objective Truth;
Then: God the Father is Objective Truth, as Jesus stated that His Father who sent Him was true.

If: Father and Son are Truth;
Then: the Spirit will also be truth, as is shown in John 14:17

Thus; God, in all three Persons, is True.

If: Moral Wrong is called Sin by God
Then: God is telling the truth.

If: Sin is deliberate disobedience to the known will of God;
Then: Sin is morally wrong, as it violates the standards God has set forth.

(Which are dictated by God’s nature, not arbitrarily created. God is not subject to these standards - His very self is implicit in these standards.)

If: Violation of these standards is objectively sinful;
Then: Violation of these standards is a transgression not just of standards, but of God’s very self.

If: The act of violation stems from a personal choice;
Then: The act of violation is an act of subjective moral choice

If: The act is a subjective moral choice;
Then: The individual is, in essence, saying that their individual moral choice is of more importance, or more valid, than God’s very self.

If: Subjectivism is the act of proclaiming one’s own choice as more important, or more valid, than God’s very self

Furthermore…

If: Pride is an excessively high opinion of oneself;

Then: Subjectivism is Pride

If: Pride is the beginning of all sin (Vulgate, non-Protestant Apocryphal book)
Then: Subjectivism is the beginning of all sin.

If: Subjectivism is the beginning of all sin;
Then: since Money is the root of all evil, Subjectivism is the root of all evil.

Thus; Subjectivism is the Root of all Evil.

Slightly tongue-in-cheek… but, really. To be more serious - Subjectivism is simply Pride. It is a Pride in one’s own decisions, that supercedes your respect for Objective Truth - thus, God.

It’s inherently sinful. As we broke down what sin is - it is thus inherently morally wrong to follow a so-called system of Subjective Morality.

7/16

Mommy Brain, Keer Unplugged, My Own Thoughts, Gigowski Gibberish, and The Common Room have also weighed in.

7/15

Carla Wolfe, Chris, and Sal have all posted on this topic as well.

After reading blestwithsons’ post, and the post that inspired it, I’ve mulled over some of the conclusions, and I’m forced to say that I agree with some, disagree with others.

This post, due to it’s title, will now get some interesting traffic, I’m sure - which is fine. That’s why I titled it as such. Better me pulling search engine traffic for this than an actual pedo photoblog… so, neener.

When we post picture of our kids online, we should worry about pedophiles. To an extent. To another extent, I don’tthink the risks outweigh the benefits.

So, what rules should we set, when we post them?

(Read on >>>)

Where did I say anything about your opinion of the TNIV? If you think I ever said anything about your interpretation, then you must have been misreading me, which might explain a few things.

In your comments section. You said: “The reason you can’t see it is because you were looking for something against those who oppose the TNIV.”

Nope. I wasn’t. Actually, I think the TNIV, like the NIV, is a paraphrase - and not a very good one. I prefer literal translations.

What I WAS looking for, was substantiative evidence of what you were saying. I read your post, and went straight to their post, to “see if it was so”. So, I read what you were saying about their anti-TNIV leanings - and even tried to make the connection - which I did - but only in their word “Considering” - which I read as “in consideration of”. When applied, contextually, I get a sense that they do, actually, not think highly of the TNIV - however, the wording does not, in any way, suggest to me any sort of accusation that TNIV supporters would be, in their opinion, “anti-Christian”.

Here’s why. (Read on >>>)

I’m going to steal shamelessly from the name of the late 80’s “missile defense program”, in my initial offering of an idea.

Now that we’re moderately organized, apologists - we need to start targeting, and spreading out to practice apologetics.

I have a couple theories on how to do so.

1. We need to start “teaming up”.

2. We need to start identifying the people we plan on reaching out to.

3. We need to start identifying the people we need to defend the Gospel from, and to.

So, there’s a few ideas, thrown into the wind. Now, let’s flesh them out.

Teaming up:

I’d like to mention a verse I made in an earlier post: “And if one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him. A cord of three {strands} is not quickly torn apart.” (Ecclesiastes 4:12)

This concept is especially important to those of us who actively defend the faith - sometimes in hostile settings. I can point to a host of times, in my own experience, where just one single, solitary friendly word worked worlds of encouragement. Even more welcome is a brother or sister, who can stand back to back with you, and assist you - and you him/her. It is invaluable, when debating, defending, or explaining the Word - and even more so in a hostile setting - which is where those of us who are active, offensively (in a tactical sense) minded apologists are likely to be.

I encourage you to find someone, or someones, of a like mind, and a like spirit, to “team up” with, when you do “on the spot” apologetics. On a forum I often debate on, I created a group called “Shade Tree Apologists”, in order to assist the Christians who debate on this forum. It’s proven unbelievably encouraging and effective - because, like that strand of three cords, it is not easily broken. It allows you to have backup, to have a slightly different perspective, an encourager, and a comradeship.

Don’t forget the great bit of wisdom above.

Identifying:

I have a challenge for you. Find at least 3 “secular”, 3 agnostic, or 3 atheistic journals/blogs this week. Pick whichever suits your style of apologetics. Now, start commenting. Get to know them. Interact - make their day. Preferably, find a low traffic blog (especially you higher-ranked bloggers), and make their day even further by giving them a nod in your sidebar.

Several “encouragement” opportunities, and a way to “let your light shine before all men”. See how that works. I’m going to try an experiment, to see how the idea of “salting the blogosphere” works, in practice. Who’s with me? I’ll round up your results in my “Daily Cut” posts, as you do so. That’s the other reason I wanted the aggregator…

Targeting:

Also, I encourage you to find at least one blog with a worldview antithetical to the Christian worldview. Disagree, trackback, and dialogue. At least one “defense” per week should be our goal, in my humble opinion. Don’t you think? Now, not all of us are _active_ apologists. If your gifts correspond to this type of thing - go for it. If they _DO NOT_, ignore this. My opinion, at least. Another option: disagree, trackback, and continue the dialogue blog to blog, instead of in their comments section. I dunno. See what works. It’s an experiment

So… who wants to try this?

Article 4 in “The Ghetto: Solutions”.

So, yeah - I’m a new kid on the block, I have some interesting ideas - maybe. That’s nice. So what. The blogosphere is an interesting phenomenon, but can it be used the way I’m talking about? If we do the same old things… No. That’s why we’re in the Ghetto to begin with. Remember? To change the paradigms, and actually get _out_ of the Ghetto - we have to rebuild it. Will it happen all at once? Of course not. Can it happen? I believe it can. Why do I believe this? I’m about to tell you why. I’m also going to tell you _how_ I think it’s possible for us to do it.

I’ll go back to my familiar themes. Hubs/Metablogs, Meta-Niching, and Individual Blogs.

This, time, though, I’m going to step past theories, models, and ideas - and get to practical application. I told you I was going to…
(Read on >>>)

We’ve discussed concepts, we’ve discussed theory - now, let’s discuss organizational models.

We all know by now what the “Ghetto” is. It’s the circular, exclusionary group of Christian god-bloggers who can’t seem to get out of their rut. That rut consists of several elements - but I want to focus on two - and the organization (or lack thereof), which causes them.
(Read on >>>)