Jason Lisle, Ph.D
Dr. Jason Lisle is a Christian astrophysicist who writes and speaks on various topics relating to science and the defense of the Christian faith. He graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double-majored in physics and astronomy and minored in mathematics. He then earned a master’s degree and a Ph.D. in astrophysics at the University of Colorado in Boulder. Dr. Lisle specialized in solar astrophysics and has made a number of scientific discoveries regarding the solar photosphere, including the detection of giant cell boundaries using the SOHO spacecraft. He also does theoretical research and has contributed to the field of general relativity.
Since completion of his research at the University of Colorado, Dr. Lisle began working in full-time apologetics ministry, specializing in the defense of Genesis. He has written a number of articles and books on the topic. His most well-known book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, demonstrates that biblical creation is the only logical possibility for origins. Dr. Lisle wrote and directed the popular planetarium shows at the Creation Museum, including “The Created Cosmos.” He now works (beginning in April, 2012) as director of research at the Institute for Creation Research.
Hey Jason,
Just got back from a month long paternity leave so I missed out on a few things. Just happened to be reading this and saw your new position. Wanted to congratulate you and say farewell. It was always a pleasure and a blessing when I had the chance to speak with you. May God bless your research and deepen your walk with Him as He leads you on this new endeavor.
In Him,
Joe
Thanks Joe. God bless you.
Jason your material on logical fallacies and presuppitonal apolgetics has encouraged me so much in God’s truth and learning how to defend it rationally. You have caused me to lose all hope of ever having an evolutionary, athiestic, agnostic, or any false worldview outside of Christianity. You have become an extreme blessing in my life. I hope I can meet you in person or have a discussion with you some day.Looking forward of learning more from you for years to come. God bless you Jason.
Thanks for that encouraging message Ben. It is my conviction that the truth of Christianity is logically inescapable. When people reject the Bible, they never do it for a good, logical reason. God bless.
Jason, I have alot of questions regarding astronomy, certain logical fallaces, people making up random worldviews, and alot of crazy things. Do you have an email address or a way we can connect?
Probably Facebook is the best way to reach me. I can’t always reply because I get so many e-mails. But I will try.
Thanks Dr. Lisle! One question I have is that how do the laws of identity and excluded middle come from God’s nature? I understand how non-contradiction does, but what about the two other laws of logic? I heard an athiest say his account for laws of logic is reasoning but isn’t that begging the question? Can you also explain how affirming the antecident and denying the consequent are valid? I understand how the opposite is not valid but I don’t get the invalid forms. I got into a debate one time with my dad about Christianity not refuting itself but he claims what about the time you got angry and took God’s name in vain? Doesn’t that refute Christianity? But thats like saying a baseball player not hitting the ball doesn’t make him a baseball player right? Sorry about all the questions, but I haven’t found a answers in your dvd series or your books or at least in detail (which I loved greatly). Please explain and God bless Jason!
New to this type of thing, but i might be able to help a little. Not an expert in anything
. What I would do is remind your dad that human beings are flawed and there fore will make mistakes like cursing God etc, Christianity doesn’t refute itself. WE ALL have fallen and therefore are able to make mistakes during times of stress or hardship. It’s not Christianity that is contradictary but humans. Again i might be making fallacies all over the place in this but i hope it helps some.
Thanks Thomas it helps alittle. I’ve been studying logical fallacies for months and I”m still doing it. Go on youtube and theirs a video of Dr. Lisle talking on logical fallacies or you can google them if you want to know more (so you can advoid making fallacies like you mentioned). I’ve found it to be fun and entertaining and its very useful in debate with unbelievers. Only about 13 I think appear in evolution/creation debates but I’m trying to memorize a good 80 of different types for fun lol. God bless Thomas.
Ben,
I am new to Dr. Lisle’s site and am not an expert, but I would suggest pointing your father to Romans 3:23 which states, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (KJV). Rather than your using the Lord’s name in vain refuting Christianity, it actually supports the accuracy of the Scriptural fact that we are all sinners in need of salvation. Indeed, if we were capable of sinless perfection, Christianity would indeed be refuted. Your father’s argument assumes that we will never sin again upon receiving Christ, but such is not the case. The Bible states that “the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matt. 26:41b, KJV). The difference between your taking the name of the Lord in vain and an unsaved person committing the same offense is that you have the Holy Spirit inside of you to convict you of wrongdoing and urge you to repentance.
Nick L.
Thanks alot Nick. You worded it in a good way. What about the logical fallacies? Got any advice on those two valid forms of the consequent and the antecident? Its hard for me to recongnize fallacies in long paragraphs. I get very caught up in looking at the whole message rather than breaking it down in a point by point fashion. I can do it quite well with a few words and phrases but paragraphs are hard to me.
Ben,
Affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent are the fallacious forms of Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens forms of a hypothetical syllogism (see Lisle, Ultimate Proof, 131-135). Recognizing them in long paragraphs is more difficult than when they are formulated as syllogisms, but learning to translate them into syllogisms can be very rewarding. Last night I was reading a selection form Darwin’s Descent of Man, and I came across his discussion of the similarities to be found among the embryos of various species. These similarities do not exist, incidentally. Darwin spends much time on this point, but when you break down his argument, it’s actually the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. The long paragraph Darwin wrote can be worded: “Darwin argues that similarities among species embryos proves evolution”. This argument can then be changed into a hypothetical syllogism as follows: 1) If species descended from a common ancestor, we would expect to find embryonic similarities. 2) We find (according to Darwin) embryonic similarities. 3) Therefore, species evolved from a common ancestor. When you write it out as a H.S., it is clearly an instance of affirming the consequent. Tackle the long paragraph by identifying the key proponents of the argument. Once you have the key proponents, analyze how the author relates them to each other. Once you boil down an argument into simple relationships between basic proponents, it’s far easier to judge the validity of the argument. (Dr. Lisle would be able to provide you with a better and more concise explanation.)
Nick
I’m confused about where to respond. You said to respond at the top but I think I’m at the top? Not sure, well I just bought an electronic version of The Ultimate Proof and as I’m reading through it I noticed their was a-lot of small things I completely forgot about. In chapter 2 of his book under the section called “The Necessity of Being Non-Arbitrary” Dr. Lisle mentions some people say “It is not important that we have a reason for things like logic and the reliability of senses and memory. It is enough that we are able to act upon them. We can know lots of things, even though we may not have a reason for those things we take for granted.” If I understand Dr. Lisle’s explanation he is saying that a belief isn’t the samething as knowing something, but that when you know something its a fact, and that knowledge and belief are separate things? I’m very confused about that section of that book. Can begging the question be committed when people with a single proposition or a single statement without their phrase “therefore” or “because”? Are the endnotes at the end of each chapter simply a summary?
Sorry I didn’t mean to post the same thing twice. I saw that it didn’t post the first time so I thought I had to do it again, and then I noticed it did post the first time. Sorry about the mix up.
My dad is a Christian, hes just very inconsistent about it. I know how Buddhism refutes itself by the teaching you have no desires is a desire within itself. Islam refutes itself by stating Allah is too big for man to understand but laws of logic are. Hinduism not possible to know knowledge but that is knowledge within itself, but how does Wicca/Pagan religions refute themselves, along with the Greek and Egyptian gods? I know Dr. Lisle mentions a book in one of his dvds of a person who has written a book on this topic but I can’t seem to find the author. How do you know all this information? Do you got an email if you do not mind sharing? Theirs alot I would love to talk about Nick! God bless and thanks for your knowledge.
Ben,
I also have relatives who hold Christian views inconsistently, so I understand the frustration that you sometimes feel in discussing the issue with them. As for how I know anything I’ve mentioned, I feel called to pursue a career in Biblical creationism, prompting me to do as much research as possible on the subject. I enjoy collecting various books and other resources on the topic from ministries like AiG and ICR. I also have access to an excellent database with full-text articles from over 11,000 publications, which offers excellent research opportunities. Regarding my email, I don’t give my contact information out, but I’d be happy to continue discussing these issues with you as long as Dr. Lisle does not object to the amount of space we’re taking. Keeping the discussion public is also helpful in that it offers other people the opportunity of joining in if they feel so inclined. If you have some specific areas of interest in the field, I could possibly point you towards some useful resources. You mentioned interest in Dr. Lisle’s discussion of the laws of logic, and an excellent book presenting a Christian perspective of philosophy as a whole (and touching upon logic) is ‘The Love of Wisdom’ by Steven Cowan and James Spiegel. The book is published by B&H Publishing group out of Nashville (2009).
Nick
Okay thanks Nick I’ll check it out. I think seemingly that when I debate in person its harder for me to pay attention to a person’s arguement. I do a much better job reading instead. In person I get frustrated and embarassed trying to focus on the speech. Do you personally discuss things in person with people or such as reading like online here? Any websites I can go practice doing presuppitonalism with unbelievers? I found a webpage with information against AIG unfortuantely and I’m having a hard time refuting it. Could you point out its fallacies? I think some of the points like at 5 and 9 is reinfication, 7 is an irrelvant theist and 6 is begging the question. I would explain why I think it be those fallacies but it take up alot of space. Could you spot them? http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article791.html
Also, its not just that link but I find information and websites talking on matter, time, and space, and God must be made of energy or matter and not both using alot of big words trying to give definitions of god and space and everything else out there not understanding anything that they are saying. I would have no idea if they are begging the question, being honest or dishonest as in simply using big words just to make themselves look smart. Like you said earlier about not knowing everything about science isn’t nessairy since it all depends on uniformity of nature would that make his or her claims about matter, time, space, god, energy, etc not confirmed since they wouldn’t have a foundation for uniformity? Also I understand that a sound arguement must have a true conclusion, and that an arguement is valid if the chain or reasoning follows. I’ve listen to Dr. Lisle’s teaching on it many times and I’m still stumped on detecting valid, unvalid, sound, and unsound arguements. I mean simply if I said all dogs are mammals, all mammals have kidneys, therefore all dogs have kidneys I understand is both sound and valid. An arguement can be bad due to a false premise or an error in the chain of reasoning (logical fallacy basically) right? But what if I came up with a worldview that says all dogs are mammals, all people named Tim are made of cheese, therefore all stars are made of snow and in my worldview thats valid and sound because I said so? How could we know if something is valid if somebody comes up with something silly like this? I’m just kinda lost on detecting valids and unvalids and the sound material.
Ben,
Yes, I’ve debated things on a person-to-person basis before, but most of my experience has been in some form of correspondence. I’ve held correspondence conversations with a professor of biology from California and a marine biologist from Spain, but the majority of my conversations have been informal. I can unfortunately not offer you any websites on which you can hone your skills (since I know of none), but reading any evolutionary material would give you the opportunity.
As for the website you posted, be aware that you will not always be able to find a logical fallacy in an opponent’s argument. Remember that the soundness of an argument depends not just upon a valid argumentative form, but also on the veracity of the argument’s premises. For instance, you mentioned the dog/mammal/kidney example. Imagine if I were to argue “All dogs are mammals; all mammals have two heads; therefore, all dogs have two heads.” My argument is entirely valid. It is the falseness of the second premise that makes the argument unsound. In like manner, you may not be able to find a logical fallacy in each of those arguments from the posted website. A long time ago, Cardinal John Newman compared challenges to one’s faith to mathematical problems. He said that someone stumped on a math problem may not know how to solve it, but they still can rest in the knowledge that there IS a solution. Don’t approach an evolutionist’s argument with the fear of finding out something that would disprove your faith; instead, approach an argument with the knowledge that any argument that contradicts your faith contains an error somewhere, no matter how difficult to spot. I will post a separate post dealing with a couple of the items from the website you posted.
Nick
Ben, I posted a response dealing with a couple of the objections from the website you posted, but the blog says that my comment is awaiting moderation. This could be due to its length, but I am not sure.
Nick
Thanks Nick. So sound means its just clear and true? Valid means that it follows which means that it does make sense. That the information presented could possibly be sound and true? Like the one with two heads? Its valid because it makes sense but its not sound because simply no two headed creature has ever been found (from a natural sense, not from a mutated sense)? I get that right? If somebody brings up something too hard for me to understand or don’t know how to refute how should I respectfully respond?
You’re correct, Ben; a sound argument is one whose argument form is valid and whose premises are true. Cowan and Spiegel list the following formula: Validity + Veracity = Soundness. In order for the conclusion of an argument to be undeniably true, the premises leading up to it must be true, and the way in which the premises are related to each other must be a valid form of logic. It is important to note, however, that an unsound argument can have a true conclusion. Consider this argument: “All people named Jason are veterinarians; Dr. Lisle is named Jason; therefore, Dr. Lisle is an astrophysicist.” The first premise of this argument is false, and the argument form is not valid. Despite this, the conclusion is true.
You also mentioned relating government to religion. This is certainly an important connection. God set up three general institutions: the church, the home, and government. Finding a proper balance of these three is often the goal of a good government. Romans 13 is an excellent chapter discussing government, and I would highly recommend James M. Willson’s book ‘The Establishment and Limits of Civil Government’, available at the American Vision website. The book provides an in-depth analysis of Romans 13. You will find that many socialistic systems follow naturally from an unbiblical worldview such as naturalism. If people are nothing but animals, then we are controlled by our environment. If we are controlled by our environment, then controlling our environment can help manage our behavior. If this is true, then the more control that is exercised over our environment, the better our behavior can be managed. Therefore, if naturalism is true, then the biggest, most tyrannical, controlling government possible is the only way to go. The relation of government to religion is yet another reason that the creation/evolution controversy is so important. Limited government follows naturally from a Christian mindset, but socialism and dictatorships follow naturally from a naturalistic mindset.
Is their a way I can get quizzed for practice on detecting valid and invalid arguments? I always lose myself generally when I listen or hear other people when I focus on their general message regarding anything. Do you think its worth studying every logical fallacy type or just the ones that occur in origins debate? I started to study every kind for fun but it seems crazy.
Ben, you mentioned that you’ve got Dr. Lisle’s book ‘The Ultimate Proof’. There are two appendices in the book that offer you a chance to hone your skills on real-life examples of evolutionist and atheist arguments. Dr. Lisle’s responses are at the end of each entry, but don’t read his reply until you formulate one of your own. I believe he suggests even writing down your own response on paper before proceeding to his response. That would be a great way to get some practice, since the answers are there for you when you need them. Or, if you want a different format, just check out any of the sites out there that try to discredit organizations like ICR and AiG. There are several of them out there, and any one of them would be a great opportunity to try out your skills. An old-earth friend of mine recently pointed me to a site run by a man named Richard Deem. Perhaps you can Google him. Go through his arguments and see how you would respond to each objection. Once you formulate a response, you could also go to the Answers in Genesis website and try to find an article in the Q&A section dealing with what he says. As for memorizing every form of logic, I don’t really think that’s necessary, but Dr. Lisle would be a better person to ask. If I remember correctly, there are 256 valid forms of a categorical syllogism alone. Again, though, I would prefer to appeal to Dr. Lisle on that one.
Ben,
I want to alter something that I said yesterday. In discussing the relationship between government and Christianity, I believe I stated that the purpose of a good government is often to try to find a proper balance between the three institutions that God established: the home, the church, and government. This is incorrect. Finding a perfect balance between these three institutions is often very difficult, but because government is one of the three institutions God created, it cannot be made responsible for finding a proper balance among all three. This would destroy the checks and balances that are supposed to be present among all three. The purpose of a good government should be to reward good and punish evil, as stated in Romans 13.
Nick
I think I’m so obsessed with presuppitional apologetics and this whole topic that I forgot about my relationship with God. I’ve been turning against my family and living by how I feel emotionally and I lost my job today and my dad is begging me about work. I’m not sure where things are going for me. I need to work on my relationship with Him. Any suggestions on how I can begin? I need to start walking the walk.
Also, what do you think of the Reason Rally in Washington DC on March 24th next month? I don’t see the point. If people don’t care about the existence of God and we are wrong than why care? Do you think its a big sign of the end times? How are we to minister the truth to Jews? They believe in the Old Testament like we do but simply reject the New Testament How can we use the presupposition approach on them? Can you give me links and urls of every source of information you can possibly give me? I want to learn as much as I possibly can. You seemingly know alot and I want to know as much science as possible. With the Christian worldview do you think its really just important to minister to people and encourage them to have a relationship with God and build it up? Regardless if they believe in evolution or not, old earth creation or young earth creation, or tongues, healing, prophecy, or none of those. The main goal is just to encourage and present the general salvation truth of Jesus to all non believers correct? Thats the impression I’ve always had.
What were categorical syllogisms? Such as the formal fallacies he talks about in his DVDs and books? Generally I just try to focus on the basic fallacies and not the category type it belongs in. I try to focus on ones that general appear in debates on origins. In order to be logical about anything such as coming to a reason to take out trash, eating food, or simply stopping at a stoplight driving, all daily life activity does it have to agree with the laws of logic? If not whats the difference between coming to supposed rational conclusions of activity of every day life and the laws of logic? How is modus pones a law of logic? Is Modus tollens also a law of logic? How do these along with the law of identity and excluded middle come from God’s personality? Whats the difference between the laws of excluded middle and non contradiction? Also, my family seemingly doesn’t care to debate me on God and spirituality with me anymore and they want to live worldly lives, but I kinda worry about them and if they die I want to know they are saved but seemingly they are just obviously blind. I know loving and serving others is the most affective way to reach the lost. Doesn’t Proverbs say to only look for those with an ear that is willing to hear and ignore the wicked and foolish person?
Ben,
When it comes to balancing your spiritual walk with your apologetic learning, I don’t feel qualified to comment. I can discuss logic, science, and evidences comfortably, but I don’t think I should offer theological advice; that would be an area reserved for your pastor or spiritual leader. What I can tell you is that God is ready, willing, and more than able to help you through any struggles you come upon in life, such as losing your job. “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths” (Prov. 3:5-6, KJV).
Since I have not heard of the Reason Rally, I would have to research it before commenting.
As for witnessing to orthodox Jews, I would advise following the examples set for us in Scripture. Much of Christ’s ministry recorded in the Gospels involves Him interacting with a Jewish audience. The Jews believe that a Messiah has been promised; they just don’t believe He’s come yet. Getting them to recognize that Jesus is the promised Messiah has been the main goal of Jewish-centered evangelizing efforts for nearly over two millennia. I would also advise looking over and carefully contrasting Peter’s sermon to the Jews at Pentecost in Acts 2 with Paul’s sermon to the Greeks on Mars’ Hill in Acts 17. Paul spends much time discussing the God who is the center of his message, but Peter skips this step, since the Jews have knowledge of the God of the Old Testament. Peter jumps directly into the fact that Jesus “whom ye [the Jews] crucified” (Acts 2:36) is the Christ. I would suggest purchasing Ken Ham’s DVD presentation “Why Won’t They Listen?” (available at the Answers in Genesis website). An interesting question to ask a Jew is who they believe Jesus was. (Jesus asks this question Himself several times.) Many Jews respond “He was a great teacher” or “He was a mighty prophet”. The fact that Jesus clearly claimed to be the Christ denies this possibility. Jesus is either 1) a liar, 2) a lunatic or 3) exactly who He says He is. There are no other options. I believe posts get held back if they are too long, so I will start a separate post dealing with some of the other things you mentioned.
Nick
Ben, you asked about whether or not the creation/evolution issue is really critical in witnessing, or whether it’s more important just to present the salvation message alone. What I offer here is nothing but my personal opinion; thus, anything I say should not be construed as to necessarily represent the opinions of Dr. Lisle, the AiG ministry, the ICR ministry, etc.
Salvation does not depend upon our interpretation of Genesis. Dr. Hugh Ross claims to have asked Jesus to forgive him of his sins and be his Savior. Because of this, I classify Dr. Ross, an old-earth creationist, as a born-again Christian. That being said, I think an old-earth interpretation of the Bible is inconsistent with a proper view of salvation, redemption, etc. Old-earth interpretations, local flood interpretations, death-before sin interpretations, etc. all undermine the authority of Scripture. As such, they are counterproductive to the Gospel message. A literal Genesis provides the foundation for the salvation message. I have written lengthy papers on this issue, but I can unfortunately not attach documents to a blog post (that I know of). All old-earth interpretations involve death before sin, undermining the doctrine of atonement. God created a perfect world in which there was no death. Death came into the world through the fall in the Garden of Eden. Any interpretation that denies this will ultimately lead to compromise and confusion. Space does not permit a full explanation of why I believe this is so, but I would recommend your viewing ‘The Great Debate’ series in the media area on the AiG website. Ken Ham and Jason Lisle spend nearly five hours detailing what I cannot possibly hope to reproduce in a few hundred word blog entry. One interesting evidence that seems to point towards the fact that there was no death before sin is the fact that God speaks of a future time when He redeems His creation when carnivorous activity will cease (the lion will lay down with the lamb). The fact that the coming state of perfection will be free from animals eating each other seems to suggest that the past state of perfection was equally free from carnivorous behavior.
In conclusion, I would argue that yes, a literal Genesis is very important when presenting the salvation message.
I understand “if p, then q, q, therefore p”. “If p, then q, not p, therefore not q” I’ve read the book and watched all of his DVDs many times (besides the astronomy ones) and its just valid and invalid stuff that I’m trying to connect with. I need practice with fallacies. I debate sometimes on facebook, but when people bring up carbon dating, distant starlight, dinosaurs, elements, any kind of science I don’t know how to respond with it since I lack knowledge in science majorly. I noticed how you brought up material from Richard Dawkins. I wouldn’t be able to spot the information you provided since well I wouldn’t know. I use to watch a lot of material from Dr. Kent Hovind and it his material did make sense, but its a lot to try to memorize. Seemingly I think logical fallacies is the most easiest to grasp for me. If I were to debate Richard Dawkins or such I would have no where to begin unless they mentioned phrases like “science says” which is the fallacy of reinfication for example but biology, astronomy, any science is just above my head currently. Should I really take science courses in order to learn whose being honest and dishonest regarding these types of science or is learning about logical fallacies good enough? I’m the only one in my family who cares about defending the faith. God bless Nick thanks for the info.
Ben,
The wonderful thing about the Ultimate Proof of creation that Dr. Lisle discusses is that we don’t have to go through and memorize all sorts of scientific information. You mentioned a scenario of your debating Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is a highly intelligent individual, and he would be able to talk about various scientific elements far more readily than most people. But if you were to debate him, you would have the edge. You see, science itself is only understandable if based in a literal Genesis. Dawkins appeals to science, but what basis does he have for practicing science? This is the vital importance of Dr. Lisle’s discussion of the preconditions of intelligibility and uniformity in nature that are grounded in Genesis. Dawkins holds his worldview inconsistently; he has no reason to believe in the preconditions of intelligibility. He can bring up the objection of distant starlight, for example, but you wouldn’t have to be able to give him a lecture on Anisotropic Synchrony Convention or Gravitational Time Dilation. All you would have to do is to point out the fact that the measurements and calculations used when analyzing distant starlight depend upon uniformity in nature. Dawkins is also depending upon the reliability of his own senses, but the reliability of our senses and uniformity in nature are both impossible in Dawkins’s naturalistic worldview (Lisle, Ultimate Proof, 58-59). Being able to counter scientific evidences is certainly a valuable skill, but there will always be someone more scientifically adept than you are, no matter how many evidences you learn. Dr. Lisle’s method circumvents this potential problem by giving the advantage to anyone who stands upon a literal Genesis rather than whoever can recite the most scientific information.
Nick
Oh that makes perfect sense. All science depends on uniformity of nature regardless whatever an individual says. What about the truth claims and relativism? Some might say well that’s truth for you but not truth for me but then saying their are no absolutes is an absolute statement but then they may say well that’s your truth and it could be a arbitrary circle argument. I pointed out to my dad before that laws of logic are depended on the biblical God, and naturalism can’t account for it. He replied so? Who cares what others think? They have the right to believe whatever they want so let them be. Why does it matter? I replied its arbitrary. He agrees with me we all should have a good reason why people believe what they believe (but this seems inconsistent of him). He said people believe their information from other sources that they get (books, media etc) but I explained you got to ask the killer question how do you know that information is true? It all must go back to an ultimate standard. Its quite frustrating talking to him or anyone in my family. How should I handle these silly responses? I was looking a blog on the internet and it claimed that the original Greek of 1John 2:22 stated that Jesus is not the Christ (τις εστιν ο ψευστης ει μη ο αρνουμενος οτι ιησους ουκ εστιν ο χριστος). I used a Google translator and it stated the something. I’m not sure what to think of it. The rest of scripture as far as I’m aware confirms Jesus is the Christ, but I don’t know about it it seems kinda scary I think.
Ben,
Yes, you’re exactly right about the self-defeating nature of relativism. A person who believes that there are no absolute truth claims cannot possibly hold to their view consistently, due to the fact that they believe in the absolute truth of the fact that there are no absolute truths. As Dr. Lisle stated in one of his Nuclear Apologetics presentations, if relativism is true, it’s false . . . in which case it’s false. In dealing with your father, remember that an ultimate proof is only that. It is not an ultimate persuasion. There is a world of difference between the two. When Dr. Lisle states that the ultimate proof leaves your debating opponent with no rational response, the key word is ‘rational’. Indeed, they may still have a response, as evidenced by your father’s attempts to circle around the argument, but his response is not ‘rational’. All you can do is point out the inconsistencies, irrationalities, and arbitrariness in his worldview. Doing so will not necessarily convince him to immediately abandon his worldview and embrace yours, unfortunately.
As for the Greek verse you mentioned, there seems to be an error in the typology of the verse. I pasted the Greek sentence that you posted into Google Translate, and it came up with a rather convoluted sentence. At the bottom of the screen was a suggestion saying “Did you mean . . .” Upon clicking the suggested spelling suggestion, the verse translates “The liar is he the if not the essential denying that Jesus is the Christ.” As you can see, this sentence is also rather confusing. If you look at a Greek-English interlinear version of the New Testament, the literal translation of the verse is “Who is the liar, except the (one) denying, (saying) that Jesus is not the Christ? This is the antichrist, the (one) denying the Father and the Son”. The words in parentheses are words that are not actually written down, but are implied by the other words of the sentence. For instance, the Spanish sentence “Bebo una taza de café” is translated “Drink a cup of coffee”, but the way the word ‘bebo’ is spelled implies that ‘I’ is the subject of the sentence, making a proper translation “I drink a cup of coffee”. Meanings can be shifted a great deal when people fail to account for words that are implied by the original language.
Nick
Also Nick (or Dr. Lisle I suppose this goes to anybody too) seemingly my family has talks about political things such as at restaurants and I’m not informed about that and I want to somehow tie God’s truth involved with it but I don’t know if that’s something that really seems likely. I think God’s spiritual truth is far more important than just temporary things that pass away like laws or where America is going so on and so fourth, but I’m unsure about trying to blend it in without annoying them and such I’ve tried it before in the past and doesn’t seem to work out.
I agree with everything you said regarding the salvation and such. I have seen the debate between Hugh Ross and Dr. Lisle on youtube. The 4 or 5 hour video, along with a 40 minute different debate also on youtube. What about modus ponens? I heard Dr. Lisle state that is a law of logic, but after looking at many websites on google everybody says that their are only three laws of logic which are non contradiction, excluded middle, and identity, nothing about modus pones or modus tollens. Some websites said that rational inference was the fourth law of logic but other than that nothing more. How many are their? I’ve also read throughout the internet that some people claim that they have mathematical or some form of method for rejecting the laws of logic, how must someone use laws of logic in order to disprove laws of logic too? Don’t the laws of logic, and uniformity somewhat go hand and hand together? I know the common responses from evolutionist regarding the laws and uniformity and heard them personally myself in debates, but how would a Muslim, Buddhist, or a Mormon respond possibly?
Ben, there are three ‘laws of logic’. These are the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of the excluded middle. These are the basic laws of logic, or laws of thought. Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens are not laws of logic; they are forms of a mixed hypothetical syllogism. There are several types of logical arguments. One category is the hypothetical syllogism, which involve an “if . . . then” construction. “If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q” is the Modus Ponens form (also called affirming the antecedent). “If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P” is the Modus Tollens form (also ‘denying the consequent’). You asked in an earlier response about categorical syllogisms (hereafter CS). CS’s are another type of logical argument, just like HS’s. They take forms like the following: “All S are M. All M are P. Therefore, all S are P”. Because these arguments deal with categories (eg. “all S”, “no S”, “all M”, etc.), they are ‘categorical’ in nature. The five basic forms of an logical argument are generally considered to be: 1) Constructive Syllogism, 2) Hypothetical Syllogism, 3) Disjunctive Syllogism, 4) Constructive Dilemma, and 5) Reductio ad Absurdum. You can find more information on each of these in the book by Cowan and Spiegel I referenced in another post.
I really don’t put much stock in the idea of someone ‘disproving’ the laws of logic. The only way to disprove something would seem to be to present some sort of argument showing its falsity. But an argument must follow the laws of logic in order to be plausible. So arguing against the laws of logic goes back to the examples Dr. Lisle mentions of people arguing against the existence of words or air, even while utilizing the very thing they argue does not exist.
I’ll have to write a separate post to briefly discuss the last question regarding other faiths.
I have not had very much interaction with the faith beliefs of Buddhists and Mormons, but I know that neither group holds to a literal interpretation of Scripture, thus dooming them to failure. Muslims will not find the basis for laws of logic in Allah. For example, Allah occasionally contradicts himself, proving he cannot be the source of the law of non-contradiction. Allah is also incapable of descending to the level of his creation, but he is supposed to be omnipotent. Claiming that a being is omnipotent and pairing that claim with the claim that there is something that being is incapable of seems to be another contradiction. Even identifying Allah with an aspect of his creation is considered blasphemous in the Muslim faith. It is called the sin of ‘shirk’. The God of the Bible is not incapable of descending to the level of humanity. “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14) when God “took on the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of man” (Phil. 2:7, KJV). The Muslims end up in the same fix that the Jews do when it comes to the question of who Christ was. They also claim that He was “a great prophet” or “a good teacher”. See my earlier post for the problem with that attempted explanation. Time constraints keep me from going into further depth on this particular issue, but perhaps Dr. Lisle can offer you additional information.
I understand if people bring up a field I don’t know about I explain how its process must perform under uniformity of nature and how you can’t account for it, but what if they say carbon dating, fission track dating, luminescence dating, or starlight estimates seem to be mostly accurate and correct due to the amount of most scientist that agree with its calculations. Regardless if its 100 percent accurate or 0 percent accurate it must work with uniformity of nature? Seems like I would just be repeating myself. What if someone says uniformity doesn’t happen, its changes all the time but its moving so slow that we as people can’t detect it with our senses or with scientific tools yet. Of course that would be begging the question correct?
How should I start a debate with someone who has rejected biblical authority? Should I start with asking for an account for laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and absolute morality?
One of my friends says you just need to love the person, you just need to tell the person about the good news of the gospel and the love of Jesus and if they reject that standard walk away until they come back to you, but most people at least I’m aware of reject it and are aware of what the Bible claims, regardless. I do know that love is obviously needed for ministry and teaching, but apologetics is just as important as well isn’t it? Doesn’t the book of Acts mention Paul giving explanation and argument for the faith? Even Proverbs chapter 4 mentions how we should approach a fool.
I’ve heard Dr. Lisle say a worldview must be consistent or you can come up with anything, but how is that so? I could say either people don’t exist and/or mars is made up of sugar. If I believed anything in my worldview why would it matter if I’m inconsistent or not? Basically the last 5 or 3 minutes of Dr. Lisle’s presentation on his logical fallacy dvd is what I’m referring to is what I’m not grasping well yet.
Thanks alot Nick again for addressing alot of these issues. Its been a huge blessing.
I got involved with another debate again, but it was extremely strange I thought. I was explaning how other religious worldviews refute themselves, but the critic was claiming how all religions are the same, and I was basically committing a straw man with my case. He said natural law and morality come from dharma and uniformity comes from a circle of creation preservation destruction and creation it is there “uniformity of nature” that all life is created preserved for awhile then destroyed. Vishnu brahma and shiva… in Hindu thinking. God isn’t a creator god is the universe. His fragmentation is what creates you. I didn’t know how to respond to that so I let it go.
He claimed Jesus never calimed to be God, It was in fact the roman senate who claimed that 5 months after his death. It was a show of power to other nations that they had killed gods avatar, but even if that was true about the Romans, the Bible still proclaims that Jesus was God the Son.
He told me I need to read the five pillars of islam which he supposedly proclaimed that uniformity and natural law (I was talking about the laws of logic, but I think he thought I meant natural laws) explains it, which of course I would have no idea where to find one so I left that too.
His friend said that the law of non contradiction is made when people say Jesus was God, but also not God at the sametime. Now their are different theories and understandings of that. Some Christians say Jesus was not fully God on the earth. Jesus was fully God on the earth, and some say that Jesus was both in a different sense. Based on what my grandpa as presented to me on this subject is that Jesus was not God while he was on the earth in his earthly body (I do not know the scriptures he presented for his position on it at the top of my head) but regardless how should that be answered? Was Jesus fully God and man and how would it break the law of non contradition? Eventually at the end of our talk the first person proclaimed he was agnostic, and if that was so what was the point of bringing up all the Islam and Hindu philosphy into the discussion, I don’t know what to think. Sorry Nick for all these siturations and questions over the past while. I hope its not too much…
Ben, I’ll try to cover much of what you mentioned. First and most importantly, Jesus most certainly does claim to be the Son of God. He does so numerous times. See John 14:8-10, John 11:4, Romans 1:1-4, and especially John 10:30. Also, the Roman government denied that He was the Son of God, as did the leaders of the Jews. As a matter of fact, this is made very clear due to the fact that Jesus was accused of and tried for blasphemy after claiming to be the Son of God (see John 19:6-8). Many did believe Jesus’ claim (such as the centurion who said at the crucifixion that Jesus surely was the Son of God), but most of His Jewish audience rejected Him. I would respond by asking your agnostic associate who he believes Jesus truly was, and I would also ask him respectfully if he has read the four Gospels, since his propositions make numerous errant claims about their content.
You mentioned Buddhism and a few other religious persuasions, and since I am reaching somewhat beyond my intellectual sphere in attempting to provide an answer or refutation for them, I would defer to anyone (such as Dr. Lisle) who is more familiar with these religions than I am. Any religion not founded upon a literal Genesis will end up failing the AIP test that you read about in Dr. Lisle’s book. Sometimes, the faults of the religion will be difficult to pinpoint when they are dressed up in the jargon of Eastern mysticism. Buddhism fails on numerous accounts, but I only have space for one. Consider the Buddhist belief that there are many, many (even innumerable) ways to become one with ultimate reality (becoming one with ultimate reality is essentially the ‘salvation’ doctrine of Buddhism). If there are many ways, then my way may be different from yours, but neither of us is incorrect. The Mandukya Upanishad states: “Om. This eternal word is all: what was, what is and what shall be, and what is beyond is in eternity. All is Om”. It should be clear that Buddhism involves a great amount of arbitrariness and relativism. Any religion that entails multiple ways to salvation is inherently relativistic, and you are capable of refuting any relativistic worldview. It really is not necessary to become fully educated in the many religions of the world, but if you would like an accessible and thorough presentation of many other religions (from a Christian perspective), check out ‘The Universe Next Door’ by James Sire. I’ll continue in another post.
Ben, yes, I posted a response the other day that is currently awaiting moderation (most likely due to its length). In it, I responded to a few of the objections from the website you posted and provided a few articles for you to read from the AiG website.
Regarding Jesus’ actual physical powers on earth, the Bible is clear that Jesus was wholly God and wholly man during His earthly ministry. Because He is God, He is capable of taking on the form of His creation, living as His creation lives, and undergoing the physical conditions and temptations that His creation undergoes. Jesus was entirely able to turn the stones to bread when tempted to, just as He was able to walk on water and rise from the dead. The fact that He suffered death (even though He certainly did not have to as an immortal Being) ties into the doctrine of redemption. In the book of Exodus, the Hebrews in Egypt observe the first Passover by shedding the blood of a lamb without spot or blemish. A spot is an inherited defect, and a blemish is an acquired defect. Jesus was (and is) “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Jesus was a lamb without spot or blemish. He was born without an inherent sin nature (via the virgin birth), making Him ‘without spot’; and He lived a sinless life, making Him ‘without blemish’. Because He satisfied these two conditions, Christ became the propitiation for our sins. He does not violate the law of non-contradiction by being God and man. The law of non-contradiction states that a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense. Christ limited His power and “took on the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of man” (See the full text of Philippians 2). This did not cause Him to be any less God.
Ben, you are correct that it is very important to be able to provide a thorough defense of our beliefs. My main life verse is 1 Peter 3:15, a verse Stephen posted in one of his posts. The verse states: “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (KJV). You are also correct that a worldview must be consistent throughout. As you said, someone can invent any worldview they wish, but a worldview is not so much an invented ideology as it is a practiced and lived-out mindset. For instance, my worldview tells me that you exist; because of that belief, I’m typing up this post for you to read. A Hindu would not necessarily agree with me that you exist. Even if this hypothetical Hindu were to meet you face-to-face and shake hands with you, they still might deny your existence. Such absurd practices fit within a Hindu’s worldview, but they are not consistent with the way a Hindu lives life. If you hold out a $100 bill to a Hindu, they’ll take it, even if they deny that you and the bill exist. This is an inconsistency. What we try to do in Christian apologetics is to show the inconsistencies that an evolutionary worldview entails. In an evolutionary worldview, science is impossible, but evolutionists still practice science as though their worldview allows for its existence. So the question really does not come down to what you think your worldview says. The question comes down to whether or not what your worldview says is consistent with how you live.
Incidentally, our posts are beginning to spread all over this particular thread. You may want to post your next post at the top of the page to keep our responses a bit more tidy and easy to follow. Also know that I do not mind the questions at all. My only concern is that Dr. Lisle may object to the amount of material I’m typing on his blog! ☺
Dr. Lisle wherever you are I would really love to hear your thoughts regarding Nick and I’s conversation. Nick. I thought I read differently, okay three basic laws. In a unforunate but furtunate way I lended a good friend of mine Dr. Lisle’s book and all his DVDs regarding apologetics assuming she would watch them in a week or so but its been way longer so I’m not exactly sure when I’ll get it back but I was going to by a electronic version on AIG so its kinda hard for me to refresh my memory on all this material. I debated someone for my second time ever with this presuppitonal approach in person regarding morality and relativism. The person kept trying to change the subject to something random off topic after I pointed out arbitrariness in his worldview. I didn’t want to anger him or try to turn him away from God so every other topic he brought up I tried giving spiritual truth to him, but still he changed the subject time to time. I always heard it was rude to interrupt but I wasn’t sure how to keep the topic on morality and such. When I do the A.I.P. test mentioned in Dr. Lisle’s book is it really necessary to use every part or just use the ones that appear more often? I know that their are subcategories within arbitrariness, inconsistencies, and the preconditions of intelligibility but I just know what the basic words mean, not the sub categories. If I don’t know them its not necessary correct? Just the basic terms? Same with logical fallacies. I know equivocation is a type of ambiguity but it seems very unnecessary from what I understand.
I’m not sure if this fear is from the fruit of the flesh mentioned from scripture or demonic or something else, but God has given me a huge desire to make sure kid’s are guaranteed to stay in the faith. Dr. Lisle’s lesson’s on apologetic s has caused me to be secured in it, but kid’s at my previous high school, and around my home country I worry for their faith, and I want to teach them about all this material but seemingly where to start. I’m very young and I wouldn’t know how to begin a ministry anyway, this article kinda explains what stirs me up http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n4/going-gone. Just this urge is seemingly growing in me and I’m not sure where or how can God use it to teach others through me. I forgot but a few days ago you had some articles or some points you had for me but it was pending or it needed to be requested through Dr. Lisle first? Anyway I can get those still or is it still a waiting progress?
Also, would Deuteronomy 11:26 be an example of excluded middle, and the Genesis account be creation be an example of law of identity? I’m still trying to figure out how God can account for the other two laws but simple scriptures like these are seemingly all I can find.
Love the Ultimate Proof so much! Attempting my first discussion discussing worldviews and the preconditions of intelligibility. Have a question for you if possible. Not sure it would be appropriate here on your bio or on one of your blogs with an unrelated topic. You have my email if you ever have time for a question. If you’d like me to ask on the blog, let me know. Thanks!
I’m glad you like the book. For the moment, I’m keeping this blog focused on God’s Law – and it’s a good place for discussion on that issue. For other issues, you might try my Facebook page. If it’s a question that others might also find interesting, go ahead and post it on my wall. I’ll try to answer – time permitting!
So glad to hear about your new position! I was kind of worried when your blog at AIG was discontinued, but I’m happy to see you continued the series here. Thanks for your stand on Creation science. You are inspiration to me, as science is important field to me, one that I’d like to look into. And like Ben’s comment, do you have an e-mail?
Thanks Stephanie. I’m really excited to begin work at ICR, and there are some really amazing projects in the works there (top secret for now!) that are going to have an incredible impact on our culture. You are welcome to e-mail me on Facebook, or post questions on my wall.
Why can’t AIG bring themselves to say where you have gone or, indeed, even that you have left ? Why can’t you say, on this blog at least, where you came from ? Isn’t this a form of dishonesty ? Aren’t there rules about dishonesty ?
Steve, I have decided not to disclose the specific reasons why I left AiG. Please respect that. My decision to leave was something that I had prayed about for nearly two years; I believe I am following the Lord’s direction in going to ICR, and I am really excited about what the Lord is doing and is going to do through ICR. Furthermore, AiG is under no obligation to tell people that I have gone to a sister ministry.
Proverbs 17:27, 10:19
Dr. Lisle,
While I was sad to hear that you are leaving AIG, I’m excited to see how God is going to use you and your research at ICR. I still recommend many of your resources to others on a regular basis, and I’m planning on continuing to do so. As a high-school senior interested in apologetics, I found your lectures to be both very intellectual and very interesting.
In Christ,
Stephen
1 Peter 3:15
Hi,
I’m an astrophysics Ph.D. student whose research flirts with big bang cosmology. I find myself getting frustrated at times, but I’ve been unable to find any resources that aren’t written for laypeople. Do you have any resources or advice? Feel free to contact me if this blog lets you see the address I entered.
Thanks.
I would recommend looking at the “Answers Research Journal.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj
Hello Dr. Lisle- Just wanted to write to say how delighted I was to hear you’re joining ICR! They are a wonderful ministry (which you already know) and I certainly hope they will put you to active work in not only in research but lecturing! Being a native Texan and a close drive to ICR’s hospitable and fascinating headquarters, I’m always thrilled when I learn my home state is to improved by such imports like yourself. Every blessing in Christ- Rebekah L. Holt, eQuest For Truth