:o)
The posts with the mosts
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Along came a spider...
Excuse the noise in the pictures...it was lower-than-ideal light, the little bugger moved kinda fast, and I don't have a macro lens.
:o)
:o)
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
A follow-up to the "atheism" post
I'd like to follow up quickly on my previous post on atheism, by submitting a link of great interest to me as I find myself quite aligned with Van Til's presuppositional and Reformed Christian philosophy:
"Why I Believe in God" - Cornelius Van Til
On the flip-side of atheistic thought, I figured I would posit a good summary (for that is all this link is: a summary) of why I believe what I believe.
As well, here is a contribution by Dr. Greg Bahnsen on Van Til's presuppositional apologetic (VERY good read): The Crucial Concept of Self-Deception in Presuppositional Apologetics
Also, more of Van Til's work (and the work of many others) can be found here.
"Why I Believe in God" - Cornelius Van Til
On the flip-side of atheistic thought, I figured I would posit a good summary (for that is all this link is: a summary) of why I believe what I believe.
As well, here is a contribution by Dr. Greg Bahnsen on Van Til's presuppositional apologetic (VERY good read): The Crucial Concept of Self-Deception in Presuppositional Apologetics
Also, more of Van Til's work (and the work of many others) can be found here.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Why I don't believe in atheism
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" - Psalm 14:1. (OK, OK, I'm sure that verse has been used on just about every anti-atheism article ever created...so sue me).
Atheism intrigues me. It intrigues me because of its contradictory nature and illogical reasoning. There is something fundamentally flawed with its premise and conclusion. Because of these reasons, I posit that most atheists, if they truly considered the logical end of their belief, would at once switch positions to that of agnosticism as they conclude that there is no way in the universe they can proclaim with 100% certainty that "there is no God". It just isn't plausible.
Atheism, in its truest form, MUST conclude that there is no God. If atheists merely conclude that there is most likely no God, they have just proclaimed themselves to be agnostics because the very definition of agnosticism is that of uncertainty about whether or not God exists; according to agnosticism God may or may not exist, but one cannot tell for sure. If atheism merely concluded that there is a 99.999999999999999999999% chance there is no God, here again "atheism" turns into agnosticism. If atheists claimed that atheism was merely a theory, that alone would catapult their belief to agnosticism. Atheism is a positively definitive statement: there is no God, and I believe the majority of "atheists" are really agnostics at heart who have not done the math, so to speak, of taking atheistic thought to its logical end.
Consider the atheist's base (pun slightly intended) belief that "there is no God". They would claim they only use scientific, natural methods to come to these conclusions, such as there being no evidence of the existence of God, and so on. Here's the trouble with that: NO ONE can make the claim that there is no evidence of the existence of God. Has anyone ever looked under every grain of sand on the beaches of the world, peered into every molecule of ice at the polar ice caps, observed every fiber of vegetation on this green earth to make sure God is not residing or hiding in those places? Certainly not; it is a human impossibility to do so. Has anyone ever examined the quadrillions of stars in the universe to make sure God was not hiding behind them or within their core? No.
Consider also the origins of matter and energy. Matter and energy exist. It is scientific that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed in the natural world. But matter and energy WERE created at the beginning. It is unscientific that matter and energy would magically appear or create itself. Matter and energy have to have origins, scientifically. But natural science alone will NEVER be able to explain the origins of matter and energy without delving into the SUPERnatural - that which is above nature and natural thinking. Atheists would gladly tell you that they just do not know how matter and energy came into being; but all that does is make us question again how they can then know with 100% certainty that "there is no God" if they cannot tell us with 100% certainty how matter and energy came into being.
Therefore, you cannot make the claim that there is no God without being a god yourself: able to examine ALL matter from the smallest quarks inside atoms to the largest star on the outskirts of the universe; able to know with 100% certainty all facts about all things that exist everywhere. You cannot make the claim that there is no God without first being able to explain with absolute certainly where matter and energy came from. Saying "there is no God" without knowing these things betrays a contradiction with what you say and what you know. One may say "there is no God", but simply, there is no way for them to tell for certain.
Here we begin to see why I don't believe in atheism. Why atheism requires much more faith than atheists are willing to admit. And why, if atheists really think about it, they might be willing to shrug off the label of "atheist" and acknowledge the possibility that there might be a God, falling under the auspices of the "agnostic" label instead.
Why am I concerned about the label one uses for these beliefs? Because if a so-called atheist is willing to admit that his former statement of "there is no God" has turned into "there might be a God, but I just don't know", it is MUCH easier to have a conversation with this person on how possible it is to actually KNOW there's a God - not merely through the abundant natural revelation present all around us, but also through faith in what we cannot see with our limited, faulty eyes. Overcoming agnosticism is another battle in and of itself, but that can be saved for another blog post.
After all, if we only believed in things we saw, touched, tasted, felt, or heard ourselves, then there's no way we could ever believe we have minds, convictions, consciences, or other abstract concepts we all use and are familiar with on a daily basis. And I'm sure no atheist is willing to put forth a statement that "there is no mind", would they? As I once heard: I may not be able to see my own mind, but I come under its effects and I experience its workings every day. In the same way, I may not be able to see God with my own eyes, but I come under His effects and I experience His workings every day.
And I am eternally thankful that He IS.
Atheism intrigues me. It intrigues me because of its contradictory nature and illogical reasoning. There is something fundamentally flawed with its premise and conclusion. Because of these reasons, I posit that most atheists, if they truly considered the logical end of their belief, would at once switch positions to that of agnosticism as they conclude that there is no way in the universe they can proclaim with 100% certainty that "there is no God". It just isn't plausible.
Atheism, in its truest form, MUST conclude that there is no God. If atheists merely conclude that there is most likely no God, they have just proclaimed themselves to be agnostics because the very definition of agnosticism is that of uncertainty about whether or not God exists; according to agnosticism God may or may not exist, but one cannot tell for sure. If atheism merely concluded that there is a 99.999999999999999999999% chance there is no God, here again "atheism" turns into agnosticism. If atheists claimed that atheism was merely a theory, that alone would catapult their belief to agnosticism. Atheism is a positively definitive statement: there is no God, and I believe the majority of "atheists" are really agnostics at heart who have not done the math, so to speak, of taking atheistic thought to its logical end.
Consider the atheist's base (pun slightly intended) belief that "there is no God". They would claim they only use scientific, natural methods to come to these conclusions, such as there being no evidence of the existence of God, and so on. Here's the trouble with that: NO ONE can make the claim that there is no evidence of the existence of God. Has anyone ever looked under every grain of sand on the beaches of the world, peered into every molecule of ice at the polar ice caps, observed every fiber of vegetation on this green earth to make sure God is not residing or hiding in those places? Certainly not; it is a human impossibility to do so. Has anyone ever examined the quadrillions of stars in the universe to make sure God was not hiding behind them or within their core? No.
Consider also the origins of matter and energy. Matter and energy exist. It is scientific that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed in the natural world. But matter and energy WERE created at the beginning. It is unscientific that matter and energy would magically appear or create itself. Matter and energy have to have origins, scientifically. But natural science alone will NEVER be able to explain the origins of matter and energy without delving into the SUPERnatural - that which is above nature and natural thinking. Atheists would gladly tell you that they just do not know how matter and energy came into being; but all that does is make us question again how they can then know with 100% certainty that "there is no God" if they cannot tell us with 100% certainty how matter and energy came into being.
Therefore, you cannot make the claim that there is no God without being a god yourself: able to examine ALL matter from the smallest quarks inside atoms to the largest star on the outskirts of the universe; able to know with 100% certainty all facts about all things that exist everywhere. You cannot make the claim that there is no God without first being able to explain with absolute certainly where matter and energy came from. Saying "there is no God" without knowing these things betrays a contradiction with what you say and what you know. One may say "there is no God", but simply, there is no way for them to tell for certain.
Here we begin to see why I don't believe in atheism. Why atheism requires much more faith than atheists are willing to admit. And why, if atheists really think about it, they might be willing to shrug off the label of "atheist" and acknowledge the possibility that there might be a God, falling under the auspices of the "agnostic" label instead.
Why am I concerned about the label one uses for these beliefs? Because if a so-called atheist is willing to admit that his former statement of "there is no God" has turned into "there might be a God, but I just don't know", it is MUCH easier to have a conversation with this person on how possible it is to actually KNOW there's a God - not merely through the abundant natural revelation present all around us, but also through faith in what we cannot see with our limited, faulty eyes. Overcoming agnosticism is another battle in and of itself, but that can be saved for another blog post.
After all, if we only believed in things we saw, touched, tasted, felt, or heard ourselves, then there's no way we could ever believe we have minds, convictions, consciences, or other abstract concepts we all use and are familiar with on a daily basis. And I'm sure no atheist is willing to put forth a statement that "there is no mind", would they? As I once heard: I may not be able to see my own mind, but I come under its effects and I experience its workings every day. In the same way, I may not be able to see God with my own eyes, but I come under His effects and I experience His workings every day.
And I am eternally thankful that He IS.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
