Deep Time – the god of our Age
Throughout history, human beings have had the tendency to reject their Creator, and replace Him in their lives with gods of their own making. From the Greek and Roman pantheons, to the Egyptian sun-god, people would rather worship a god that they create than the God who created them. Such false gods always have the following characteristics. (1) They are attributed one or more characteristics or powers that belong only to the Living God, especially a power over some aspect of nature. (2) They are given allegiance, worship, or reverence above God in at least some way. (3) They are created either physically or conceptually by man. (4) They are not the Living God, the Creator of all things.
In our modern “educated” world, people often look back at the silliness of the Greek, Roman, or Babylonian gods, as if we are far too sophisticated for such primitive nonsense. But that just isn’t the case. There are many false gods in our modern world; entities that are revered by people above God, and attributed powers that they cannot literally possess. Whether it is the worship of concepts like nature, or power, or physical entities like money, such things should not be respected above God, and they cannot do what God alone can do.
But one false god stands out among others today; this god is worshipped and reverenced as the ultimate god of our culture. Many books have been written about him, and dedicated to him. He is the foundation of most modern philosophy and education. What is the ultimate false god of our age? Is it Evolution? No, Evolution is certainly a popular god. But many people doubt Evolution. And in any case, Evolution answers to a higher god – a god who is far more popular and powerful than Evolution: the god Deep Time.
Deep Time is the concept of vast ages of pre-history: the notion that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. It is a popular belief today, and is considered by many people to be the mainstream “scientific” position. Disciples of Deep Time would probably object to the notion that he is a god, or that he is even a person at all. They might say that Deep Time is an academic concept, the conclusion of scientific reasoning – not a person with power. However, by their actions, Deep Time disciples do indeed imbue him with personal characteristics and powers that only a conscious being can possess. Students of logic will recognize this as a reification fallacy. Nonetheless, for this article, we shall honor their beliefs and refer to their god as their actions suggest that we should. Deep Time, as he is commonly followed today, does indeed fit the characteristics of a false god.
Consider (1) Deep Time has characteristics and powers that belong to God alone. In fact, the parallels are truly amazing! For example, Deep Time has the power of creation. According to His followers, he has made stars, planets, and galaxies. He has made canyons, and mountains. Deep Time separated the continents and oceans. He has made all living creatures through his servant – Evolution. Indeed, Deep Time took the elements of this world, and from that dust he made man. These are all powers and actions that are rightly reserved for God alone (Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 33:6, Job 38:4, Psalm 104:5-8, Genesis 1:9-10, Genesis 1:20-25, Genesis 2:7).
But it doesn’t end there. Deep Time is also said to have tremendous power to direct the course of events in the universe. Deep Time creates and destroys species and civilizations at a whim. He gives life and takes it away. He continually shapes the earth as he sees fit – changing deserts to lush gardens, and gardens to deserts. Deep Time existed long before man, and will continue long after man, or so we are told. Again, these are characteristics that are rightly attributed only to God (Acts 17:26, Job 42:2, Isaiah 46:10, Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Acts 17:25, 1 Timothy 6:13, Job 1:21, Isaiah 51:3, 43:19-20, Genesis 13:10, Deuteronomy 29:23, Genesis 17:1, Deuteronomy 33:27, Isaiah 43:10, Revelation 22:13).
But according to his disciples, nothing is too difficult for Deep Time! He is able to do any miracle! Consider this famous quote from Dr. George Wald, “Time is the hero of the plot. … Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, the probable becomes virtually certain. One only has to wait; time itself performs the miracles.” Yes, the gradual evolution of dust into people may seem impossible. But with Deep Time, all things are possible! He is the “hero of the plot!” Compare this with the characteristics associated with the biblical God (Matthew 19:26, Jeremiah 32:17).
(2) Disciples of Deep Time worship him with reverence and awe. They may deny this with their words, but their actions indicate that they do cherish this god above all others. This makes sense: if indeed Deep Time does have the powers and abilities that his disciples attribute to him, then he should be worshiped. Such worship takes place in the schools and universities, where Deep Time’s wonderful works are praised all the day long.
The worship of Deep Time is found in many a science textbook too. Sandwiched in between the discussions of science will be stories about the amazing feats of Deep Time. A little science here, and an amazing story there. Although Deep Time has nothing to do with science, often the science and the stories are interleaved such that it can be difficult to tell where one begins and the other ends! The mixture makes for an entertaining, though deceptive read.
Devotees take their religion very seriously. Deep Time must not be questioned. That would be sacrilege! Those who fail to worship at the altar of Deep Time are ridiculed, and face being expelled from the classroom. Textbooks that fail to acknowledge the supreme lordship of Deep Time are not likely to be used, or even published. Those who wish to work as professors must swear allegiance to Deep Time and His servant Evolution if they want to be hired.
(3) Deep Time is manmade. The concept of vast ages of prehistory is not something that has been revealed to us by the Living God, nor recorded by the history books of men. Rather, it is an invention of man to account for the characteristics of our present world without invoking biblical history. The modern version of Deep Time can be traced back to James Hutton – a medical doctor who lived in the 18th century. His ideas were further popularized by Charles Lyell in the early 19th century. However, this is merely a re-imagining of a much older idea. A number of ancient cultures believed that the Earth was significantly older than the biblical timescale.
(4) Deep Time is not the Living God. Nor is Deep Time an aspect of God, a creation of God, or an ally of God. Deep Time exists only as a concept, created by the mind of men. He has no literal existence. Although his disciples ascribe to him many of the characteristics of the biblical God, it is clear that Deep Time is fundamentally different than the God of the Bible.
The biblical God is love (1 John 4:8). The biblical God is righteous, just, and merciful. He made a perfect world with no pain or death, a world that was corrupted by Adam’s sinful actions. God punishes evil, as any good judge will do. However, God is so full of love and mercy, that He has extended forgiveness to all who will trust in Him. He has paid the penalty for their treason by dying on a cross in their place, and will undo the curse of death by resurrecting everyone.
But Deep Time is a cruel, uncaring creator. He creates billions of organisms, only to slaughter them off at a whim. He does not care about justice or love, and is merciless and arbitrary in his judgments. He creates using death and pain, and does not listen to the cries of anguish of his creations. He punishes the innocent along with the guilty, and rewards evil and good alike. There is no forgiveness or mercy to be found in Deep Time – only the certainty of death.
This last characteristic deserves special attention. For the biblical God, death is an enemy that was introduced by Adam’s sin: an enemy that God Himself will destroy (1 Corinthians 15:21, 25-26). But death is Deep Time’s ally and servant. Evolution works through death. Progress is made incrementally by the slaughtering of billions of creatures, so that one may gain a slight improvement. What a sadistic and inefficient process that Deep Time has chosen! I can only say that I’m grateful to the Living God that Deep Time doesn’t actually exist. What a horrible god he would be!
Since Deep Time is so contrary in nature and actions to the God of Scripture, it is disappointing that many Christians attempt to honor and serve both of them. There are those who teach that God used Deep Time to create the universe, in stark contrast to God’s own revelation of creation. They claim that God used billions of years of death and suffering to get the world to be the way He wanted it (apparently unaware that death is an enemy of God, and one that was introduced as a punishment for Adam’s sin.) It’s not that modern Christians want to give up the True God. Rather, they simply want to add another god, one who is contrary in nature and actions to the Living God. Unfortunately, this type of syncretism has been a common failing in God’s people.
Consider the Israelites. Their main struggle was not with giving up God completely, but with adding other gods. They wanted to merge their beliefs with the pagan practices of the day, and worshiped and served the gods of Canaan. This was totally inappropriate, not only because the Canaanite gods are fictitious inventions of the mind, but because God alone deserves our worship and does not tolerate idolatry. In the First Commandment, God states that “You shall have no other gods before Me.” The phrase translated “before Me” has the meaning of “in my presence.” Scripture is clear: God alone is to be worshiped as God (e.g. Matthew 4:9-10).
Remember reading of Baal? Baal was the Canaanite god of weather and thunder. The Israelites often fell into Baal worship, in violation of the First Commandment. Elijah pointed out their absurd inconsistency in 1 Kings 18:21, “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.” It was illogical for the Israelites to attempt to serve two contrary gods (and immoral). Are we any different today when we try to add other gods to Christianity?
No man can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24). Those Christians who want to believe in Deep Time along with the biblical God are being dreadfully inconsistent. They may claim that they serve the Lord alone, but by their actions they reveal that Deep Time is their primary god, and the Lord is secondary. We can tell this by the way they handle Scripture. For the Deep-Time-Christian, all Scripture is interpreted in light of the dictates of Deep Time. Thus, Deep Time is primary, and the Scriptures are secondary. Indeed, if the Scriptures were primary, then the individual would have to reject Deep Time as a false god (Exodus 20:3, Isaiah 45:5-6) and fictitious concept (Exodus 20:11)
It can be discouraging to see so many Christians attempting to serve the pagan god Deep Time. It often feels like the Christians who truly stand on God’s Word are so very few. But we should remember that Elijah was discouraged as well. In a time when he was afraid for his life, and thinking that he was the last faithful believer he cried out to God (1 Kings 19:14). But the Lord responded, “Yet I will leave 7,000 in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed him.” (1 Kings 19:18). Think of this the next time you are discouraged about the rampant compromise within the Church. How many more Christians has the Lord kept for Himself who have not bowed the knee to Deep Time?
You are completely replacing the things that I actually said with things that bear no resemblance to anything I’ve ever said, but prove to yourself that I am actually lying & share your beliefs. How did you get this far in life without learning how to handle the fact that other people think differently from you?
Actually, there is one thing that has me curious: If my morals come from God, why do I disagree with you on what is moral so often? I’m quite certain that you would disagree with me on abortion, divorce, gender roles, homosexuality, & so on. If you’re going to say something like “Satan!” or “Worldliness!” then how can you prove that I have any morals that come from God at all? I could pull my ethics out of a hat & odds are that some of them will agree with yours on coincidence alone.
“Science being knowledge by observation… and I’ll mention the scientific method which is observing and testing theories, can you provide one observable example of Evolution?”
Yes. Genetic experiments have shown that the genetic code is universal. It is possible to give teeth to a creature that ordinarily has none, make it glow in the dark, etc. As long as you have the right genes, any trait can be changed.
Speciation & mutation have been observed with many specimens, such as drosophila flies.
Since new genes can arise spontaneously, since populations can become incompatible breeders with each other, & since the genetic code is universal, it follows that there is no natural barrier preventing a “kind,” whatever that means, from transforming into another.
This model best explains genetic similarities, fossils, & so forth.
Thank you. I’m not trying to attack here; I am genuinely curious. Can you show an example of an animal that had no teeth ever and “evolved” teeth?
We do not deny that speciation and mutations occur as that is definitely observational science. The problem is that scientists have assumed that change within a kind must mean that one kind of animal can eventually change into another even though there has been no observational account of this.
“Kind” is not hard to understand. It would be mostly like “Family” by today’s classification. There is a clear difference between the dog kind and the elephant kind. There is no evidence that shows a non-dog became a dog, for example.
A model that best explains genetic similarities, etc. is that there was one creator who used the similar building blocks to create. Fossils really don’t tell you anything other than that something died and the bones remain. There have been theories forced upon these fossils.
Well said, Steve! 🙂
“Thank you. I’m not trying to attack here; I am genuinely curious. Can you show an example of an animal that had no teeth ever and “evolved” teeth?”
Not an extant one.
“The problem is that scientists have assumed that change within a kind must mean that one kind of animal can eventually change into another even though there has been no observational account of this.”
Yes, that is why I said “experiments,” & not “observational studies” in my previous post.
I wonder if you consider Rutherford’s experiment to be unscientific. After all, he never “observed” the existence of an atom that was mostly empty space with a small, positively charged nucleus at the center, he merely extrapolated that structure from the results of his experiment, as well as a few assumptions about how objects in nature typically form.
Or what about forensics? Sure, we can demonstrate, in controlled settings, that a body will decay in a certain fashion, when placed in a certain environment. But if we’re not there to observe it directly, how do we know that the killer hasn’t somehow altered the rate of decomposition, through some unknown method? Are we just guessing?
Also, what barrier prevents an animal of 1 “kind” from evolving into a new “kind”?
“There is no evidence that shows a non-dog became a dog, for example.”
Nor should there be. A diversified animal would not evolve into a different, already existing diversified animal. It would evolve into a new species with similar genes. If it evolved into a new type of animal, it would be just that–a new type of animal.
“A model that best explains genetic similarities, etc. is that there was one creator who used the similar building blocks to create.”
That’s not a model, that’s an assertion. How did it create the genes? How did it put them together? What marks did it leave on the genes that show this process? Why did it conspicuously leave signs of common descent in creatures that were in fact completely unrelated? There’s no reason why a chimp has to be genetically similar to a human. There’s no reason why some creatures would even need DNA at all, other molecules are capable of carrying genetic information.
“Fossils really don’t tell you anything other than that something died and the bones remain.”
You are technically correct. The best kind of correct. They do, however, show transitional forms that are consistent with genetic similarity, & conspicuously only appear in certain strata, between species they are believed to bridge.
“Can you show an example of an animal that had no teeth ever and “evolved” teeth?”
“Not an extant one.”
Then why believe that this has happened?
I wonder if you consider Rutherford’s experiment to be unscientific.
Experiment. That’s part of the scientific method. What experiments can be/have been done to show that speciation can lead to a brand new kind of animal?
Forensics. It is circumstantial evidence and yes I’d say it’s a form of educated guessing and yes it can be wrong.
Also, what barrier prevents an animal of 1 “kind” from evolving into a new “kind”?
Throughout Genesis 1, God tells the creatures to multiply after their kind. The barrier would be the command of the creator. You’re asking for what scientific barrier perhaps. Why assume there is a barrier issue to identify? What barrier stops pigs from growing wings and flying?
“There is no evidence that shows a non-dog became a dog, for example.”
Nor should there be. A diversified animal would not evolve into a different, already existing diversified animal. It would evolve into a new species with similar genes. If it evolved into a new type of animal, it would be just that–a new type of animal.
Ok, let me ask this way. Keeping with the dog example. Is there evidence that shows what a dog (canine) evolved from? Was there a pattern of Non dog > not quite dog > almost dog > dog?
You referred to evolving into a new species with similar genes. Yes, we observe that. It would still be a dog. When would this speciation cross the “barrier” going from one family to a new family? (one kind to a new kind)
That’s not a model, that’s an assertion. How did it create the genes? How did it put them together? What marks did it leave on the genes that show this process? Why did it conspicuously leave signs of common descent in creatures that were in fact completely unrelated? There’s no reason why a chimp has to be genetically similar to a human. There’s no reason why some creatures would even need DNA at all, other molecules are capable of carrying genetic information.
How? The power of God’s voice. He has said His ways are above our ways. His thoughts are above our thoughts. Are you assuming that it can’t be true if we don’t know exactly how it was done? I believe that is where Josef was going when he mentioned the basis for logic in his last post.
Humans have genetic similarities to more than just chimps. We have similarities to a banana! The genetic similarities are evidence of one Creator.
“They do, however, show transitional forms that are consistent with genetic similarity, & conspicuously only appear in certain strata, between species they are believed to bridge.”
…aside from the exceptions. Why would there be exceptions? Why are there polystrate fossils? Living ceolocanths? Wollemi Pines? There are many examples like this. The problem with the “science” today is that new discoveries that suggest that evolution or deep time could be wrong do not make the scientist question evolution or deep time. Instead, scientists tend to try to make the new discoveries work in their already conceived notion of evolution and deep time.
It keeps coming back to the issue of worldviews. Same evidence, different view.
“Why did it conspicuously leave signs of common descent in creatures that were in fact completely unrelated? There’s no reason why a chimp has to be genetically similar to a human.”
We shouldn’t start there. This might be a convincing argument to an ignorant person (no offense), but to someone who knows God exists, it’s really not convincing. If someone studied a famous painting long enough, they could discover signs that it wasn’t actually painted, and if it was painted, it would be deceptive. But you can’t start there. People saw the famous painter paint, so it isn’t a logical leap. Likewise, you can’t start with DNA as proof that God doesn’t exist. You have to start with revelation (prophets, miracles, etc.). You have to start with the ultimate style reasoning (such as Pascal’s wager). Once you know beyond doubt that God exists and God created us, finding answers to your questions is easy. You can argue with an insane person about the voices in their head all day and it won’t go anywhere (I know, I’ve tried). They will make more excuses. Better to drive the demons out in Jesus’ name! 🙂
But as to your specific claim that there shouldn’t be similarities, I say why not? Chimps have arms and eyes. Why shouldn’t they have traces of the hidden code as well? Women look like men – except in certain key locations. That doesn’t make them of a common descent. In fact, how long ago would male and female have to have split paths? Seems to me that they had to go through every mammalian stage separated. They should look more different.
Lithp: “Yes. Genetic experiments have shown that the genetic code is universal. It is possible to give teeth to a creature that ordinarily has none, make it glow in the dark, etc. As long as you have the right genes, any trait can be changed.
Even if true, this is simply taking existing genes and essentially transporting them to a different organism. And this is also compatible with the creationist’s model. But the challenge for the evolutionist is to explain the origin of new genes. In order for molecules-to-man evolution to be true, there must be a mechanism to show how new genes (not ones that exists but in different organisms) can arise. Because evolutionists ultimately teach that every living thing we have on our planet evolved from a common, single-celled ancestor. This cell didn’t have the genes for teeth. So there must be a mechanism for brand-new information to originate. Better yet, we shouldn’t just have theories of this, but we should have plenty of examples of it. Instead, I can only think of possibly one or two examples, and even those are disputable.
Lithp: “Speciation & mutation have been observed with many specimens, such as drosophila flies.”
Since speciation is actually an important part of the creationist model, there really isn’t any need to comment on this. However, it is more consistent with the creationist’s model. Because speciation and mutations in general, tend to eliminate information from the genome, not increase it.
Lithp: “Since new genes can arise spontaneously, since populations can become incompatible breeders with each other, & since the genetic code is universal, it follows that there is no natural barrier preventing a “kind,” whatever that means, from transforming into another.”
Then you should have no problems with giving examples of mutations that actually increase new genetic information all on its own. Not examples of transferring of genes, because that does not explain the origins of the gene in the first place.
Lithp: “This model best explains genetic similarities, fossils, & so forth.”
Actually the best explanation of the similarities are that all life was created by the same Creator.
And, only the biblical worldview can provide the foundation necessary for science to even be possible. In the evolutionary worldview, if true, science wouldn’t be possible. As science would require uniformity of nature, reliability of the senses, and logic (among other transcendental laws) for it to work. The atheistic worldview if true, would make knowledge an impossibility.
“So there must be a mechanism for brand-new information to originate.”
New information in the form of overall gene number being increased: Insertions are mutations that add an extra nucleotide (such as TAAAB to TATAAC), while amplifications are when a group of repeated nucleotides (such as TAAAC) are repeatedly replicated (to form TAAAAAAC)
New information in the form of having an effect on the protein coding: Any mutation can do this.
“Actually the best explanation of the similarities are that all life was created by the same Creator.”
I very much doubt that. Do you have a model of the forces that enabled the initial creation, an explanation of why certain genes ended up in certain species but not in others, one for what enables speciation but not “kind to kind” speciation, & actual scientific proof of any of this?
“In the evolutionary worldview, if true, science wouldn’t be possible. As science would require uniformity of nature, reliability of the senses, and logic (among other transcendental laws) for it to work. The atheistic worldview if true, would make knowledge an impossibility.”
What the Hell are you even talking about? That doesn’t make any sense at all.
Hi Lithp, a duplication of a nucleotide does not logically result in new information. It would be like having two copies of the same dictionary. More material – no more information.
If I were to duplicate a letter or letters in any text, information is lost. Even if a word were formed, it would most likely no longer fit context. Thus, duplications and mutations, in this context and the context of genetic codes, results in confusion – loss of information.
Here is a link to Dr. Georgia Purdom’s article on “Feedback: Evidence of New Genetic Information?”
She says regarding the usefulness of gene duplications and point mutations:
“I agree that usefulness would be key to selecting for duplication/mutation events; however, most mutations do not produce useful outcomes, and duplications/mutations have never been observed to add new information. Natural selection merely selects from existing genetic information.”
Also, regarding the spontaneous generation of new genetic information through duplication or point mutations she says:
“Ultimately the burden of proof lies with those who believe that duplications and mutations can lead from fish to fishermen, not with those who don’t (even though we have spent and continue to spend considerable research showing that this is not possible). However, it’s important to remember that we are both looking at the same evidence. The central issue is what our starting point is when looking at the evidence; belief in the constantly changing ideas of man or belief in the unchanging Word of God.”
Lithp says: New information in the form of having an effect on the protein coding: Any mutation can do this.
Unless you have a specific example, I believe Dr. Purdom’s article clearly refutes your claim that any mutation can generate new information. Destruction of or inhibiting of protein coding, loss of functional usefulness, is not a sound argument for the creation of new information. All examples previously given represent a loss of information, which comes at a selective cost to the organism.
Lithp said: “Do you have a model of the forces that enabled the initial creation, an explanation of why certain genes ended up in certain species but not in others, one for what enables speciation but not “kind to kind” speciation, & actual scientific proof of any of this?”
I believe Christian scientists are making honest efforts to discern all methods the Lord used during the creation of the universe. I also believe we can model what we know and what we suspect. But, models change as more information becomes available. Bohr’s model comes to mind…As for the Christian model for creation, I believe saying God (sentient) spoke it into existence is as valid as saying the universe cooled and molecules (non-sentient) decided to self arrange into complex, self-aware, organisms.
Lithp: “ New information in the form of overall gene number being increased: Insertions are mutations that add an extra nucleotide (such as TAAAB to TATAAC), while amplifications are when a group of repeated nucleotides (such as TAAAC) are repeatedly replicated (to form TAAAAAAC)”
Repeating gene sequences is not new information. You wouldn’t think you had twice as much info if I just gave you multiple copies of the same book, would you? Also, mutations tend to scramble or change information, but these changes often lead to information decreases (and worse yet, are usually harmful). And like I said previously, you should have countless examples information increasing mutations if molecules-to-man evolution were true. It shouldn’t be hard to think of a real-world example of information gaining mutations. In fact, we should expect them to be fairly common.
You might be thinking we don’t have them because there isn’t enough time. But this argument only works for “higher organisms” that reproduce slowly. We can have several generations of bacteria in just a few weeks. So we should be able to see this supposed evolution in action.
Lithp: “New information in the form of having an effect on the protein coding: Any mutation can do this.”
You can assert that, but you haven’t provided any real world examples of this.
I said: “Actually the best explanation of the similarities are that all life was created by the same Creator.”
Lithp: “I very much doubt that. Do you have a model of the forces that enabled the initial creation, an explanation of why certain genes ended up in certain species but not in others, one for what enables speciation but not “kind to kind” speciation, & actual scientific proof of any of this?”
No, because the creation event was a one-time event in the past. However, the reason certain genes ended up in certain species and not others is because God created separate kinds of living organisms. The barrier is that they just don’t have the genetic flexibility to become something else. And this is consistent with what we actually observe.
Evolutionists believe there is no barrier, so hypothetically roses and dogs shared a common ancestor. But all actual observations of the variances of dogs show they just produce different varieties of dogs and the mutations lead to information losses. And again, this is consistent with the creationist’s model. I.e. if we had a population of mongrel dogs we might be able to get virtually every breed of dog we see today. But if we just take a population of Chihuahuas then we can’t get the Great Dane because the Chihuahua lacks the genes for giantism. So the gene would have to be reintroduced.
I said: “In the evolutionary worldview, if true, science wouldn’t be possible. As science would require uniformity of nature, reliability of the senses, and logic (among other transcendental laws) for it to work. The atheistic worldview if true, would make knowledge an impossibility.”
Lithp: “What the Hell are you even talking about? That doesn’t make any sense at all.
How does that not make sense? In order for science to be possible, we must have uniformity of nature. If we didn’t, then who is to say that just because water boils at 100 degrees Celsius right now, that it won’t boil at 70 degrees 10 minutes from now? If we couldn’t rely on our sense, then we couldn’t even perform a scientific experiment, as we wouldn’t know if what we are observing is actually real. If we couldn’t rely on logic, then how would we reason through any scientific experiment? If we didn’t have an object and absolute standard for morality, then why should we be honest in our research and reporting? Of course this all makes sense; I don’t think you had really thought it through.
But here’s the thing: if atheism is true, then there is no justification for the preconditions of intelligibility. Instead, it appears that atheists simply want to take the preconditions of intelligibility for granted, and with good reason: they do not comport with the atheist’s worldview. Only the Christian worldview can justify the ability to have knowledge, and the atheists constantly have to borrow concepts that only comport with the Christian worldview.
“Well either you’ve never been in contact with scientists who accept biblical creation (and if you’re here on Dr. Lisle’s blog, then I find this pretty hard to believe) or you’re committing the No True Scotsman Fallacy, as if scientists who accept the biblical account of history aren’t somehow “actual” scientists.”
Or I meant personal contact, & Dr. Lisle & I have hardly exchanged words, & most of what he said had nothing to do with science, correct or incorrect.
Being a Creationist doesn’t necessarily make someone not a scientist, though it definitely instills some doubt in me, which only goes up if they’re an astronomer, a geologist, or a biologist.
“Also, there are plenty of evidences that suggest that the earth is much younger than the 4.6 billion year estimate: C14 found in diamonds that supposedly billions of years old or the rate at which the earth’s magnetic field decays puts an upper limit of 10,000 years for the earth.”
Well, in that case, I won’t even bother asking for proof, I’ll just completely disregard all of this evidence that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old.
“Secular scientists have to come up with all sorts of rescue devices to avoid the biblical time scale.”
Such as actually measuring the age of the Earth, & the universe?
“I’ll just completely disregard all of this evidence that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old.”
What evidence are you referring to? The 4.6 billion years is based on radiometric age dating of a meteorite.
I said: “Also, there are plenty of evidences that suggest that the earth is much younger than the 4.6 billion year estimate: C14 found in diamonds that supposedly billions of years old or the rate at which the earth’s magnetic field decays puts an upper limit of 10,000 years for the earth.”
Lithp: “Well, in that case, I won’t even bother asking for proof, I’ll just completely disregard all of this evidence that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old.”
So basically you’re going to pretend the problem of the earth’s magnetic field putting an upper limit for the earth’s age of 10,000 years and that we still find C14 in diamonds that are supposed to be billions of years old, do not exist?
I said: “Secular scientists have to come up with all sorts of rescue devices to avoid the biblical time scale.”
Lithp: “Such as actually measuring the age of the Earth, & the universe?”
Scientists do not actually measure the age of the earth or universe; and all dating methods are based on unverifiable assumptions and there are plenty of examples of faulty ages given by radiometric dating methods. The best way to know the age of something is to have a reliable document of an eye-witness who was there to witness an event. And that’s what we have in the Bible.
Big ol’ evolution post:
~STEVE~
“Experiment. That’s part of the scientific method. What experiments can be/have been done to show that speciation can lead to a brand new kind of animal?”
As I have already said, we have confirmed 3 points scientifically:
1. Certain types of mutations can lead to an increase of overall genetic information or spontaneous coding of a new protein.
2. The genetic code is universal.
3. Populations can become reproductively isolated, & display different genes in the 2 sub-populations.
From these 3 facts alone, we can extrapolate how organisms split off from each other & differentiate new groups, which has been enormously successful in explaining various habitat radiations, genetic similarities, & fossils.
Further testing will doubtless lead to increasingly “extreme” examples of speciation. We already have bacteria that have evolved to digest nylon. For comparison, go try to eat rubber (only don’t, because it will give you cancer), & see how long it takes for humans to gain the ability to eat rubber. Until then, well, it’s kind of like asking why scientists even bothered with this “atom” mumbo jumbo. The atom has not been photographed until this year. Depending on what you consider the origin of atomic theory, it’s been over 200, 350, 2600 years modeling something we haven’t actually been able to see. So, why didn’t they just give up? They couldn’t show us that 1 smoking gun, so what did they really have? By contrast, “Darwinian evolution” began 154 years ago.
“Forensics. It is circumstantial evidence and yes I’d say it’s a form of educated guessing and yes it can be wrong.”
So it is or is not an invalid academic discipline?
“Throughout Genesis 1, God tells the creatures to multiply after their kind. The barrier would be the command of the creator. You’re asking for what scientific barrier perhaps. Why assume there is a barrier issue to identify? What barrier stops pigs from growing wings and flying?”
Yes, I am asking for a scientific barrier. And yes, that would be my question. What is it that makes it impossible for pigs to evolve into a flying animal, knowing the 3 facts above?
“Ok, let me ask this way. Keeping with the dog example. Is there evidence that shows what a dog (canine) evolved from? Was there a pattern of Non dog > not quite dog > almost dog > dog?”
Dogs, bears, skunks, etc. belong to an order called “caniforms,” with Miacis cognitus being one of the earliest known examples.
“When would this speciation cross the “barrier” going from one family to a new family? (one kind to a new kind)”
I don’t know, I’m still waiting for someone to define the barrier between 1 “kind” & another. The best I’ve got is that it’s a bit like a family. Remember, this is your terminology, evolutionary biologists do not consider 1 example of speciation to be somehow more illogical than another.
“How? The power of God’s voice. He has said His ways are above our ways. His thoughts are above our thoughts. Are you assuming that it can’t be true if we don’t know exactly how it was done?”
The exact criticism of descent from a common ancestor was that it’s unscientific because we can’t prove that it happens, “proof” being defined as actually witnessing it directly. Now you’re telling me that not only can we not observe a creature being “created,” you don’t even have an idea for how it might work that we could actually attempt to look into with any kind of observation or experiment? Sweet Jesus, I might have even settled with “we’re working on it.” This is why Creationism is religion, not science. It’s failed to live up to my supposedly lax standards of what constitutes scientific evidence, let alone this idea that we have to watch a phenomenon in real time to claim it is scientifically valid.
“Humans have genetic similarities to more than just chimps. We have similarities to a banana! The genetic similarities are evidence of one Creator.”
We have far fewer similarities to bananas than we do to chimps, because we are much more distantly related to bananas. And no they aren’t. There is absolutely nothing, anywhere, that concretely points to the evidence of a conscious creator.
“…aside from the exceptions. Why would there be exceptions? Why are there polystrate fossils? Living ceolocanths? Wollemi Pines? There are many examples like this.”
None of those are exceptions to anything. Coelacanths and wollemi pines were not posited to have evolved into a specific species, & polystrate fossils occur in cases where multiple strata are laid down quickly, which there are ways to test for. But even if it were the case, why should a handful of incidences where part of a comprehensive theory are shown to be incomplete somehow invalidate the core concept? Did we disprove medicine when we discovered antibiotic resistance in bacteria? That’s an “exception” to the theory.
Also, I feel like you think that secular scientists always agree on everything. Man, nothing could be further from the truth. Those guys love to argue, they argue over whether or not viruses are alive, over how many species there are, over what killed the dinosaurs (although that’s been mostly put to rest), over whether or not Piltdown Man was real (it wasn’t), & so on.
“It keeps coming back to the issue of worldviews. Same evidence, different view.”
I don’t know what exactly you’re claiming here, but I most likely do not agree with it. I haven’t seen anything to convince me that creationism has as much explanatory & predicative power as evolution, so I don’t think they’re mere differences in opinion, & I certainly don’t think that creationism is more valid.
“What evidence are you referring to? The 4.6 billion years is based on radiometric age dating of a meteorite.”
Yes & no. “The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.[4]
The oldest such minerals analyzed to date – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – are at least 4.404 billion years old.[5][6][7] Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to those of other stars, it appears that the solar system cannot be much older than those rocks. Calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old,[8][9] giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth.”
~BRIAN FORBES~
“We shouldn’t start there. This might be a convincing argument to an ignorant person (no offense), but to someone who knows God exists, it’s really not convincing.”
None taken, but yes I should. To someone who believes in God, I doubt anything I could say could ever change that person’s mind about anything. Such is the nature of dogma. However, I’m not especially interested in what people find convincing, & more interested in evaluating the claim of what is or is not science.
“If someone studied a famous painting long enough, they could discover signs that it wasn’t actually painted, and if it was painted, it would be deceptive.”
Not sure how you’d do that.
“You have to start with revelation (prophets, miracles, etc.). You have to start with the ultimate style reasoning (such as Pascal’s wager).”
See, this stuff isn’t science, & I hope you’re not elevating Pascal’s Wager to any profound logical status. It is known to have several major holes in its logic, such as the false dichotomy that the only options are atheism & Christianity.
“Once you know beyond doubt that God exists and God created us, finding answers to your questions is easy.”
Yet nobody can seem to do it. I don’t think I’m asking for a lot, here. I’m literally only asking people to live up to their own definitions of science. If you’re telling me that evolution is unscientific because I can’t produce a new genus on the spot, & also that you can’t actually show that any creature was ever created, but creationism is still scientific, something is wrong here.
“But as to your specific claim that there shouldn’t be similarities, I say why not? Chimps have arms and eyes.”
It’s not that there shouldn’t be similarities, just that there is no need for this consistent pattern of more morphologically similar organisms being more similar genetically. Most genes do not code for appearance, so we only actually “need” to share a relative few genes. In fact, we don’t “need” to share any genes, this theoretical God could have used RNA for certain species, DNA for others, etc.
“Why shouldn’t they have traces of the hidden code as well? Women look like men – except in certain key locations. That doesn’t make them of a common descent.”
…Women and men are obviously of common descent, they are members of the same species. You don’t get much more “common descent” than being 2 individuals of the same animal.
“In fact, how long ago would male and female have to have split paths? Seems to me that they had to go through every mammalian stage separated. They should look more different.”
What?
You think it’s important to keep truth within the realm of science. It can be true without being scientific. History, for example. Knowledge of God is another good example. I’m not relating dogma. I’m relating experience.
Pascal’s wager:
It’s true that it is a false dichotomy the way Pascal presented it, but if you modify it ever so slightly, that problem goes away. I’d pose it this way:
We either remember or don’t remember. If we don’t remember, nothing matters because nothing will have mattered. If we do remember… see Pascal for more. And we can go beyond Pascal for more too. The point is, there’s no point unless God exists.
You missed the point with the male / female ancestry. That’s ok. I don’t need you to agree with me, and I’ve learned that issues like this are more about blindness than information.
I pray that the God of sight opens your eyes. In Jesus’ name.
Hi,
>As I have already said, we have confirmed 3 points scientifically:
1. Certain types of mutations can lead to an increase of overall genetic information or spontaneous coding of a new protein.
But in order for molecules-to-man evolution to be true you would need to show us an observable example of brand new genetic information arising.
A bird for example, has different genetic information in it than a pig (that’s why it’s a bird and not a pig), so if you wanted to show how a pig could evolve into a bird-pig, you would have to show how that information can arise spontaneously from within the pigs genome.
Simply an increase in ‘overall’ genetic information is not enough either. Gene Duplication may increase the overall genetic information, but it is simply the same information being expressed twice. Its not brand new, and does not perform any new function.
2. The genetic code is universal.
This is consistent within the creationist framework as well.
3. Populations can become reproductively isolated, & display different genes in the 2 sub-populations.
Different genes, but they wont have brand new information in their genes. The reason their genes are different is because of a loss of information and/or genetic reshuffling. Reproductive Isolation goes in the opposite way of evolution, they lose a function.
From these 3 facts alone, we can extrapolate how organisms split off from each other & differentiate new groups, which has been enormously successful in explaining various habitat radiations, genetic similarities, & fossils.
It doesn’t explain how a salmon can become a lizard, only how a salmon can become a different kind of salmon. That’s not evolution.
Further testing will doubtless lead to increasingly “extreme” examples of speciation.
Translation: There is no evidence out there for molecules-man-evolution, but there will be someday!
We already have bacteria that have evolved to digest nylon.
A common example given by evolutionists as proof of evolution-in-action. However, the bacteria did not gain any new information. What happened in this example was that the enzyme EII was altered because of a point mutation. The bacteria already had this enzyme so it’s not an increase in information. Plus the normal function of the enzyme is to break down a substance that is already very similar to nylon in its chemical makeup.
Yes, I am asking for a scientific barrier. And yes, that would be my question. What is it that makes it impossible for pigs to evolve into a flying animal, knowing the 3 facts above?
Simple. They don’t have the genetic information for it, and there has been no evidence of a mechanism that allows for brand new information to be added to the genome.
“When would this speciation cross the “barrier” going from one family to a new family? (one kind to a new kind)”
I don’t know, I’m still waiting for someone to define the barrier between 1 “kind” & another.
The barrier is genetic information. A bird has different genetic information than a pig, so unless an evolutionist can show how new genetic information can arise in a genome; there is no way a pig will ever sprout wings and fly.
The exact criticism of descent from a common ancestor was that it’s unscientific because we can’t prove that it happens, “proof” being defined as actually witnessing it directly.
Well, I wouldn’t put it that way. The fact that there is no observable evidence of molecules-to-man evolution is a very good indicator that it’s unscientific and untrue. But the main criticism I have with it is that it clearly contradicts the Bible, and since the truth of the Bible is required for science to even be possible, anything that contradicts it must necessarily be false.
Now you’re telling me that not only can we not observe a creature being “created,”
We can observe a creature being created all the time. You just have to look in the womb of the mother while she is pregnant. Or perhaps you are referring to the creation event that happened in Genesis? Well of course we can’t observe that, it happened 6000 years ago. We can’t observe me eating my breakfast this morning, anymore. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
We have far fewer similarities to bananas than we do to chimps, because we are much more distantly related to bananas.
That is merely assuming what you are trying to prove. The reason we have so few genetic similarities to bananas is because our design is completely different. A banana does not have arms and legs, for example.
Sorry I would have liked to comment on everything you wrote. But I just don’t have time right now.
Micah
“Sorry I would have liked to comment on everything you wrote. But I just don’t have time right now.”
Neither do I. Frankly, we’ve both wasted what little time we have. You because I already named mutations that increase genetic information & I don’t believe in using fairy tales as proof. Myself because, as you’ve clearly stated, you intend to be a hypocrite, believing whatever proves the Bible, while claiming that others are doing the same thing with evolution & that’s why it’s unscientific.
I’m sure there will be some offended cry of “ad hominem,” but I really will not be around to see more forced reading of logical fallacies in everything.
Lithp said: “…I already named mutations that increase genetic information…”
To be accurate, you have not. You did make the claim, however you merely provided an example off genetic mutation through a text exercise attempting to demonstrate genetic duplications and point mutations within the genetic code. That is not new information, it is addition of material through reuse or change of material, which leads to the destruction of information. Any benefit, which is exceptionally rare, is arguably outweighed by a functional cost in another areas, which would put survival at risk.
Lithp said: “I’m sure there will be some offended cry of “ad hominem,” but I really will not be around to see more forced reading of logical fallacies in everything.”
Arguments should be made in a rational and civil manner; and by civil I don’t mean dispassionate. If fallacies are identified accurately, then they aren’t forced. Perhaps you desire that less time be spent in the debate identifying logical fallacies? Unfortunately, demonstrating the weakness of an argument by identifying logical shortcomings is a tenant of debate.
Lithp: “You because I already named mutations that increase genetic information & I don’t believe in using fairy tales as proof.”
If you’re talking about the nylon eating bacteria, then Micah has already explained that one.
And we don’t believe in fairy tales either. That’s why we don’t believe in frog-to-prince evolution.
Okay, already some good comments from Jim and Josef here, but i felt like i needed to address this.
>Myself because, as you’ve clearly stated, you intend to be a hypocrite,
I clearly stated I intend to be a hypocrite? Where was that exactly?
Also, from an evolutionary perspective, why is being a hypocrite a wrong? In a chance universe where we are nothing more then chemical reactions, why bother even making a moral claim? Why is it that hypocrisy should be considered wrong? Who gets to decide that and why?
Let me put it this way, if evolution were true, then any moral claim or thought would just be the result of random chemistry in the brain. But how does someone determine if chemistry is good or bad? An evolutionist doesn’t get angry when vinegar reacts with baking soda and yet that is just random chemistry. You see, evolution can never justify morality, because morality requires a standard higher than ourselves. This is why evolutionist must borrow concepts like right and wrong from Christianity, its just impossible to justify it within their own worldview.
believing whatever proves the Bible,
Well, God doesn’t really need to be ‘proved’ since He has made Himself known to all. I also don’t really need to believe anything that ‘proves’ the Bible. I judge things based on the Bible not the other way around. What i mean is that if someone presents me with a scientific theory or understanding of some sort, the first thing i will do is make sure it does not contradict scripture. The world is imperfect and so are the people, but the Bible is Gods Word and God is Truth, so anything we view outside of it must never contradict it because truth is always self consistent.
while claiming that others are doing the same thing with evolution & that’s why it’s unscientific.
Evolution is unscientific for many reasons.
1: There is no evidence for it.
2: It fails to provide any rational basis for things necessary for science. For example, there is no basis to believe in uniformity in nature from an evolutionary perspective. Why does the universe behave in a consistent way that we are able to predict? You may say that the universe always has behaved consistently so it always will, but this is just assuming what you are trying to prove. Evolution cannot provide a rational reason to believe in unchanging laws of nature, it can neither account for the reason that like conditions will produce like results, why, in an ever changing universe do certain laws feel compelled to stay the same. If these laws weren’t consistent then we could never do any scientific experiment, and yet, evolution cannot provide any basis for why we should believe these laws will stay the same. It may sound like im repeating myself a lot here but thats because this is a very important point. Evolution cannot provide any basis for science whatsoever.
3: It contradicts the Bible, which does provide a rational basis for believing in uniformity. The Bible states that the universe is upheld by the power of God, and God never changes, so we can expect that certain laws will never change either. Therefore the Christian has a rational basis for doing science, the Evolutionist, has none.
Micah
“Also, from an evolutionary perspective, why is being a hypocrite a wrong?”
Because it causes distrust, and distrust causes social obstacles. Social obstacles decrease one’s chances of maintaining social interactions, status, and mating, thus hindering the things we instinctively seek out.
“You see, evolution can never justify morality, because morality requires a standard higher than ourselves.”
Evolution says nothing about morality, though it does explain how it came about (social instinct, primarily). And morality has existed in non-theistic belief systems & atheism throughout recorded history.
“This is why evolutionist must borrow concepts like right and wrong from Christianity, its just impossible to justify it within their own worldview.”
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that everyone who accepts evolutionary theory is atheist. That is most definitely not the case. Nor are all atheists “evolutionists,” which is not even a real word.
As for borrowing from Christianity: morality has existed since long before Christianity existed. Unless, of course, you think that Hammurabi’s Code, the Ten Commandments (Jewish, btw), and Buddhism all took their ideas from a religion that wouldn’t even exist for thousands of years…
“Evolution is unscientific for many reasons.
1: There is no evidence for it.”
There IS evidence for evolution. Your ignorance or denial of it does not change that fact. Nylon-eating bacteria, literally every vaccine & cure ever developed, and everything we know about genetics came about due to evolution.
“2: It fails to provide any rational basis for things necessary for science.”
Vague, but still wrong.
“Why does the universe behave in a consistent way that we are able to predict?”
That has nothing to do with evolution. You really should actually study the subject via biology textbooks, instead of maintaining your misunderstanding of what evolution actually is.
Evolutionary theory merely deals with the adaptation & diversification of life since it started. It has nothing to do with the origin of life itself, nothing to do with cosmology, and nothing to do with philosophy.
“3: It contradicts the Bible,”
Which contradicts itself, and reality (if you’re a literalist). By your own admission, you must believe the following in direct contradiction to science:
-bats are birds.
-rabbits chew cud.
-animal coat patterns can be manipulated by making them mate while looking at painted sticks.
-there was a global flood, despite the fact that cultures outside the Middle East have unbroken historical records that make no note of such.
-man & woman were created together after animals, and that man was ALSO created before animals (which were created before woman).
Personally, I prefer to take Thomas Jefferson’s approach to the Bible: it is mostly parable & allegory, as was the tradition of ancient Jews, meant to teach lessons suitable for the time. I personally believe that evolution is the mechanic God set in place to help life in the universe along. But then, I’m a Quaker, which apparently makes me the same thing as an atheist/Satanist/Muslim to certain people.
I’m sorry if your faith is so fragile that you must pretend that all of biological science is somehow one massive conspiracy, instead of simply looking at the actual science & being awed by the complex motions God has set in place.
Hi Incandescent,
>“Also, from an evolutionary perspective, why is being a hypocrite a wrong?”
>Because it causes distrust, and distrust causes social obstacles. Social obstacles decrease one’s chances of maintaining social interactions, status, and mating, thus hindering the things we instinctively seek out.
This still begs the question, and doesn’t answer why being a hypocrite is wrong from an evolutionary perspective. Why is seeking out those things the goal? What if someone doesn’t care about maintaining social interactions or status’? Could you still say that them being a hypocrite is wrong without it just being your opinion?
>“You see, evolution can never justify morality, because morality requires a standard higher than ourselves.”
>Evolution says nothing about morality, though it does explain how it came about (social instinct, primarily).
Exactly, it can’t explain why everyone should be held to the same standard of morality. At best it could explain ‘how’ we have morality, it can never explain ‘why’ people should have to obey that morality if they don’t want to. So if someone wants to rape, pillage and murder, you cant really say that its wrong of them to do so because evolution can only explain how we got morality, not why we should continue to behave that way.
And morality has existed in non-theistic belief systems & atheism throughout recorded history.
Irrelevant, I never said that people couldn’t be inconsistent within their own belief system. Of course people have behaved morally through out recorded history, that’s because people are made in the image of God and He has written His law on their hearts. They know what is right and what is wrong, they just cant justify it logically within their own worldview.
>“This is why evolutionist must borrow concepts like right and wrong from Christianity, its just impossible to justify it within their own worldview.”
>You seem to be under the mistaken impression that everyone who accepts evolutionary theory is atheist. That is most definitely not the case.
Of course not everyone who believes in evolution is an atheist. I am well aware of the various compromised positions of Christianity out there, as well as agnostic and so on. Whatever gave you the idea I believe that?
>Nor are all atheists “evolutionists,” which is not even a real word.
Sure it is, it’s a noun/adjective used to describe people who hold to evolutionary beliefs. Why would you think it isn’t a word?
>As for borrowing from Christianity: morality has existed since long before Christianity existed. Unless, of course, you think that Hammurabi’s Code, the Ten Commandments (Jewish, btw), and Buddhism all took their ideas from a religion that wouldn’t even exist for thousands of years…
Morality does not come from ‘Christianity’ per se, morality comes from God, and since God has always existed, morality has always existed. People can understand wrong and right because God has written His law on our hearts. So of course its no surprise that people have tried to come up with many variations of Gods moral standard in the past but they all have the same problem, they aren’t logically justified. Only God is capable of giving us the logical justification we need to understand morality. Dr. Lisle and Dr. Purdom have an excellent article on this if you would like to study it further. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/morality-and-irrationality-evolutionary-worldview
>“Evolution is unscientific for many reasons.
1: There is no evidence for it.”
>There IS evidence for evolution. Your ignorance or denial of it does not change that fact.
>Nylon-eating bacteria,
Nice try, but nylon eating bacteria is not evidence for evolution-in-action as many evolutionists would like to have us believe. I’ll point you to another article that you can read if you’re interested in learning more about this supposed evidence.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria
>literally every vaccine & cure ever developed, and everything we know about genetics came about due to evolution.
That’s a nice opinion, you mind explaining how ‘everything we know about genetics’ is due to evolution?
>“2: It fails to provide any rational basis for things necessary for science.”
>Vague, but still wrong.
How is it wrong? Science is only possible because of uniformity in nature, that is, if things happen more than once in the same way, we can expect similar outcomes each time. This is what allows us to do experimentation, imagine if every time we tried to do an experiment the same way we got a different result, no matter how many times we tried. It would destroy almost all ability to learn anything about the universe. And yet, why should we expect that similar situations would produce similar results? From an evolutionary perspective we could never know if the universe will continue to operate the same tomorrow, as it will today. Evolutionists believe that it will on blind faith. The Christian however, has a good reason to believe the universe will operate the same tomorrow, as it will today, because the universe is upheld by Gods power and He has promised us a certain degree of uniformity in the future. Therefore it makes sense for a Christian to do experimentation, he can rationally expect that the universe will continue to operate the same. The evolutionist has no such basis, he cannot rationally explain why the universe will operate the same tomorrow, or even 2 seconds from now and yet he will do science as if it will continue to operate the same. This is irrational.
>“Why does the universe behave in a consistent way that we are able to predict?”
>That has nothing to do with evolution. You really should actually study the subject via biology textbooks, instead of maintaining your misunderstanding of what evolution actually is.
It does have something to do with evolution. A belief system must still be rational if we are to even consider it; I was pointing out the irrationality of the evolutionary belief system. If it can’t explain why the universe behaves in a consistent way, then why should we believe that it does? If the universe doesn’t behave in a consistent way, then this casts doubts on all areas that evolution touches upon, biology, astronomy, etc. etc. If we cant know for certain the universality of the laws of nature then why assume they are universal? Evolution itself might not have anything to say on things like laws of logic or laws of nature, but belief in evolution will affect whether you can justify things logically or not, and from an evolutionary framework, things like laws of logic and laws of nature make no sense; because of this the scientific method itself makes no sense within an evolutionary framework, because science and the scientific method are based on things like the laws of logic and the laws of nature.
>Evolutionary theory merely deals with the adaptation & diversification of life since it started. It has nothing to do with the origin of life itself, nothing to do with cosmology, and nothing to do with philosophy.
This is a straw man, I wasn’t strictly talking about ‘evolutionary theory’, it was about the evolutionary belief system. And actually evolution does touch on areas like geology and astronomy. The big bang is a part of evolution, how the planets formed and the galaxies formed are all a part of evolution. Perhaps you misunderstood us here on the blog and thought that when we say evolution we strictly mean biological evolution? No when we say evolution we usually mean all of it from astronomical to geological to biological. And yes evolution does try to explain the origin of life, most evolutionists for example, believe in abiogenesis.
And again, evolution itself might not say anything about philosophy, but it’s a system of beliefs that will greatly affect that area.
>“3: It contradicts the Bible,”
>Which contradicts itself, and reality (if you’re a literalist). By your own admission, you must believe the following in direct contradiction to science:
Here we go again…
>-bats are birds.
-rabbits chew cud.
-animal coat patterns can be manipulated by making them mate while looking at painted sticks.
-there was a global flood, despite the fact that cultures outside the Middle East have unbroken historical records that make no note of such.
-man & woman were created together after animals, and that man was ALSO created before animals (which were created before woman).
Most of these are easily answered, and if you had bothered to research these at all you would have realized how silly some of these supposed contradictions are.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/contradictions-scripture-index
Thanks for the comment,
Micah
“Lithp commits the straw-man fallacy; who said Christians “officially recognize” these so-called gods?What we may call a god in the sense of being an idol isn’t an official recognition that the idol is Deity.”
No I didn’t. I didn’t say, “recognized by Christians,” I said, “officially recognized BY ITS FOLLOWERS.”
Alright, if you want dictionary quotes so badly, here’s one courtesy of Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: deep time
Part of Speech: n
Definition: multimillion- or billion-year geologic time
Example: to distinguish between deep time and eternity
Etymology: late 18th c, James Hutton
Usage: geology
Look at that. Not a single reference to gods, deities, or idols anywhere in here. Deep time isn’t a god. So, uh, how about you:
A. “Start using officially recognized words, not just what seems clear to you.”
B. “If you don’t like that answer, take it up with the writers of the dictionary.”
Lithp, no one has said deep time is defined as a god. Also, when I went to m-w.com and looked up deep time, m-w did not have a listing. Did you use a different source? Perhaps Wikipedia?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deep%20time
Dr. Lisle’s commentary is that deep time is the atheists’/evolutionists’ “god”, because that is where they place their faith in their theory of creation. You seem to be saying Merriam-Webster should include some reference or explanation of all objects/ideas that can be idolized, which would not make sense. Christians fully believe that for some people, money is an idol (or god). The relentless pursuit of/or obsession for an object or idea is the evidence that something may be an idol (money, cars, internet, video games, pornography, drugs etc). In this case, deep time is the object in which some place all of their faith as an explanation for the creation of the universe. It is a straw man fallacy to say Christians attribute deity status to these items or any object or idea other than the one true God.
A. “Start using officially recognized words, not just what seems clear to you.”
Which word was used that is not officially recognized? Deep time is an officially recognized concept, but I have not found a definition listed in the m-w dictionary.
B. “If you don’t like that answer, take it up with the writers of the dictionary.”
Your assertion that m-w as the source is inaccurate as the writers have not included a definition as shown.
I misread my tabs:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deep+time
That’s nice, Lithp. Except for the fact that I was defining what “god” is from the dictionary. And you’re the one who said things like video games, medicine, and the internet aren’t gods because they weren’t supernatural. But as per the dictionary definition of “god” a god can be an idol or a deified object; therefore, when a Christian calls something like “medicine” someone’s god, they are using the term within the acceptable meaning of the word god. They obviously aren’t using the word in its literal meaning of it being something supernatural or deity. So your definition of “deep time” really is irrelevant as I was defining “god”.
Dr. Lisle, I have another idea to ask about. First though, have you written an article or blog in response to the idea of a “missing gravitational field” in ASC.
I want to suggest that colliding galaxies point to actual past history on the order of millions of years. I will try to demonstrate this using three collision events.
If we look at a picture of Arp 148 we will see two galaxies still in the collision process. This is unambiguous. Matter is being dragged out from Arp 148 by the intruder galaxy. We can also see Arp 148 forming into a ring.
Arp 147 has a larger ring than Arp 148 and an intruder which is farther away.
In the final example, the Cartwheel galaxy, it has a much larger ring and the probable intruder is much farther away.
If we lay the photos down in a row, we get a picture of the history of galaxy collisions. But, this may just be a story we created in our minds. The rings may just be matter which was created in an expanding condition and the “intruder” may just be a galaxy which we projected an interpretation onto.
Is there any evidence that Arp 147 and Cartwheel galaxies represent actual past collisions?
Arp 147, like Arp 148, has matter stretched out towards the intruder galaxy. The size and expansion velocity of its ring have been measured and a time, for an impact, of about 50 million years ago was obtained. Likewise, the separation distance and velocity of Arp 147 and its intruder galaxy were measured and again a time of about 50 million years was obtained.
For the Cartwheel galaxy, the size and expansion velocity of its ring was measured and a collision time of 300 million years ago was obtained. The intruder galaxy, G3, was identified, because it left behind a trail of neutral hydrogen. This plume stretches from the Cartwheel galaxy to the location of G3. The researchers determined that such a plume cannot be gravitationally dragged by a non-colliding intruder. The existence of the gas plume unambiguously demonstrates the importance of the hydrodynamical effects in the collision. The distance between G3 and the Cartwheel galaxy is also consistent with a collision 300 million years ago.
All of the evidence seems to be pointing to actual past collisions which took place millions of years ago. It does not make sense to me that God created these galaxies with properties which, when measured, make it look like there were past collisions.
Hi Kenny,
Contrary to what has been circulating on some evolutionist blogs, there is no net gravitational field in the ASC model. That’s very easy to demonstrate, and I will write up a short blurb on that in the near future.
Regarding galaxy collisions, let me start by pointing out that the only thing we can actually observe scientifically is the way the universe is today. Any time we attempt to reconstruct a possible history that led up to our present universe, we have left the realm of science because it is never possible to experimentally or observationally test our conclusions about what happened in the past. Of course there is nothing wrong with speculating. But it is healthy to remember that any ideas about the past that are not part of recorded history are ultimately speculations. Certainly, some speculations have more merit than others. But they can never be proved – at least not scientifically.
My second point is that the particular speculations you’ve heard presented by the secularists are not nearly as cogent as you may have been led to believe. For example, you mention that the “separation distance and velocity of Arp 147 and its intruder galaxy were measured and again a time of about 50 million years was obtained.” I have no doubt you heard or read that somewhere, but such measurements are not actually possible. With galaxies as far as these ones, the distance is impossible to measure with the precision necessary for such a computation. If the redshifts are similar, we can only say that they are probably at roughly the same distance.
But one might be a bit closer or farther, and we have no way of knowing. A person might naively assume that the more distant one would have a higher redshift. But this isn’t necessarily the case. Its velocity through space also contributes to its redshift. And so the nearer galaxy might have a higher redshift because it is moving through space away from us faster than its more distant neighbor. We cannot split the redshift into “Hubble flow” (distance) and “peculiar velocity” (“actual” velocity through space). In other words, we need both rate and distance to compute a time; but all we have is a measure that is a combination of distance and rate.
In addition, we have no information on the proper (tangential) motions of these galaxies. This is beyond our technology to measure at the present. Secularists might assume that these galaxies collided in the past and use this to make estimates of when. But apart from this assumption, there is no way to know that the velocity vector is even in the right direction (to say nothing of the right magnitude) to make a past collision possible. There are literally an infinite number of possibilities. To assume only the one that makes a past collision possible, and then argue that this suggests a past collision, is to beg the question.
Third, not all sequences are time sequences. You mention laying down these photos in a row, and then using that to form a history of galaxy collisions. And you rightly mention that this could just be a story we created in our minds. That’s the real issue. How do we know that a sequence is temporal/historical? It is always tempting, particularly for secularists, to interpret a pattern in light of temporal progression. And sometimes a pattern is indeed due to a temporal progression. But sometimes it isn’t. Without temporal information, we can never know for certain. And so it becomes a question of what is reasonable – and this is a philosophical question.
There are many cases where secularists have assumed a temporal progression for a sequence that was later discovered to be non-temporal. As one example, there is a class of stars that are referred to as “main-sequence” stars. Most of the stars in our local solar neighborhood are main-sequence. When we plot luminosity versus temperature of these stars (e.g. an H-R diagram), we find it falls into a natural curve. Initially, many scientists (ever eager to find the evolutionary connection in things) concluded that this was a time-sequence. It was argued that the bright, hot, blue stars on the upper left of the diagram eventually evolved into the cool, red stars on the lower right. By taking a picture of various stars, they found they could line these up into a clear history of stars in various stages of evolution, just as you have suggested for colliding galaxies. It was a wonderful story. And it was completely wrong.
The main-sequence is not temporal at all. It is a mass-sequence, not a time-sequence. The more-massive stars are on the upper left, and the less massive ones are on the lower right. So there is a pattern; but it has nothing to do with time. Even to this day, astronomers refer to blue stars as “early-type stars” and red stars as “late-type” stars in homage to this early misconception.
Similarly, galaxies can be organized into the famous Hubble tuning fork. Originally, many astronomers immediately assumed that this too was an evolutionary sequence. It was thought that ellipticals eventually evolved into spirals, going from type a down through type c. But no one believes that any more.
Fourth, any estimate of age is basically some variation of t = d/v. We have a distance travelled or some equivalent, we have a rate of change, and we solve for t. But in order to know the distance travelled, we need to know the starting position (the initial conditions). And this is never actually known. We can suggest that God wouldn’t start the universe in such and such a way. But then the argument becomes a theological one, and requires us to know what God would or would not do. But the only way we can know what God would or would not do is from divine revelation – the Bible. And the Bible teaches that God created in six days (e.g. Exodus 20:11) and cannot lie (Titus 1:2).
It won’t do to say that God wouldn’t make the universe “look” old because age cannot be seen. God did not create the universe with “appearance of age.” He made it functional. No matter what condition God started the universe with, it is always possible to imagine a (fictional) previous condition that would have led to that condition by slow, natural processes. Is this deception on God’s part? Of course not. God told us what He did, and we ignore it at our own peril. If we ignore God’s Word, apply naturalistic assumptions about how long it would take for a system to reach a particular state from initial conditions that are contrary to God’s Word, and then conclude that the universe “looks” old… well, that’s our fault, not God’s.
Kenny, I have learned over the years to better trust what God has said in His Word. God really does know how to communicate. And so when He says He made the cosmos in six days, we can trust that He really did. I really don’t think there is anything in the realm of astronomy/astrophysics that can seriously challenge the biblical age of the universe. On the contrary, there is certainly an abundance of scientific evidence that confirms that the universe is much younger than billions of years. But ultimately, the only way we can know for sure is if God indicated the timescale in His Word, which is just what He did. I hope this helps.
Things like this….make my head hurt.
All of your arguments would be sound if you were using the correct definition of the words “constant”, “evolution” or “scientific”
You’re arguing a point that simply does not exist. The theory of evolution at no time claims to explain everything in existence. It does however explain, quite well I might add, how biological, civil and social life changes. That’s all it does. No more, no less.
The bible has NOTHING to say on the matter. As a matter of fact, you sir have no business posting a blog or anything else online for that matter. In fact, you have no business using electricity.
Electricity
Biology
Pharmacy
Evolution
Physics
“Modern” medicine
None of the above are in the bible, yet they are all valid sciences that contribute to your daily life. Grow up.
Eldon says: “All of your arguments would be sound if you were using the correct definition of the words “constant”, “evolution” or “scientific””
Hi Eldon, thanks for your perspective. Can you be more specific as to where the above listed words were used incorrectly?
Eldon said: “You’re arguing a point that simply does not exist. The theory of evolution at no time claims to explain everything in existence. It does however explain, quite well I might add, how biological, civil and social life changes. That’s all it does. No more, no less.”
Again, please be specific. Which point does not exist? Your assertion that scientists who believe in the creation history of the Bible have claimed that evolution itself claims to explain everything in existence is a ludicrous, irrational straw man fallacy. No one here has made the claim that evolution attempts to explain everything in existence.
Also, I believe that everyone contributing or reading these posts would agree that they don’t believe the theory of evolution explains anything in and of itself as it is an idea, not a sentient being. The people who believe in evolution hold the beliefs and make claims according to how they interpret the data.
Furthermore, either your statements are inaccurate or you disagree with the folks at Berkeley as to what evolution includes:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_01
Their definition of evolution includes the study of the origins of life, which is more than what you have claimed. Perhaps you should confer with the folks at the University of California Museum of Paleontology.
Eldon said: “The bible has NOTHING to say on the matter.”
The Bible has nothing to say about many matters. I believe you have a misconception that those who hold that the Bible is both God breathed and historically accurate also believe that it specifically addresses everything in the universe. It would be quite a large book if it did…
I does, however, address the origin of life and the creation of the universe in some detail. It can also be applied to every aspect of our lives without explicitly listing everything in existence. Perhaps you should check it out.
Eldon said: ” As a matter of fact, you sir have no business posting a blog or anything else online for that matter. In fact, you have no business using electricity.”
You are certainly entitled to your opinions. However, as you have not provided logical justifications for them, your arguments are irrational.
Eldon said: “None of the above are in the bible, yet they are all valid sciences that contribute to your daily life. Grow up.”
What point are you making here? What is the basis of your statement to grow up? Does your definition of a grown up not include someone that believes in God?
Eldon: Things like this….make my head hurt.
That’s an interesting, but irrelevant.
Eldon: “All of your arguments would be sound if you were using the correct definition of the words “constant”, “evolution” or “scientific”
This is merely a question-begging epithet fallacy; you certainly have not provided any evidence that Dr. Lisle is not using the “correct” definition of those words.
Eldon: “You’re arguing a point that simply does not exist. The theory of evolution at no time claims to explain everything in existence. It does however explain, quite well I might add, how biological, civil and social life changes. That’s all it does. No more, no less.
Not so; this is a tactic that I’ve noticed a lot of internet evolutionists/atheists try to use, i.e. limit evolution to just biological or social evolution. However, the general theory of evolution encompasses much more than that. See for example: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html.
Eldon: The bible has NOTHING to say on the matter. As a matter of fact, you sir have no business posting a blog or anything else online for that matter. In fact, you have no business using electricity.
Electricity
Biology
Pharmacy
Evolution
Physics
“Modern” medicine
None of the above are in the bible, yet they are all valid sciences that contribute to your daily life. Grow up.
Actually the Bible has a lot to say on these matters. First off, evolution does not belong on this list, as evolution (in the sense of molecules-to-man) is a fairy tale.
However, the Bible is the revelation from God, and all matters it touches upon are true. The Bible says that God created distinct kinds of animals and plants from the beginning of creation. Therefore, animals and plants did not ultimately come from a single-celled ancestor that itself came from non-living matter (chemical evolution/abiogenesis). And all the variation we see today of animals is consistent with the creationist’s model as mutations tend to decrease genetic information, not increase it as molecules-to-man evolution requires.
Also, the Bible teaches that the earth and universe were created 6,000 years ago; and while this does not directly touch on the subject of the speed of light or radiometric dating (physics), or geology, etc it does indirectly touch on those things. Because if the Bible is the word of God and what it says it trust worthy, then it certainly does touch on physics and geology and history.
The Bible also provides the foundation for modern science. In order to even be able to do a scientific experiment, we must be able to rely on our senses, rely on logic, uniformity of nature and an objective moral standard. None of these comport with the atheistic worldview. As an evolutionist how do you know your senses are even reliable? How do you know you can rely on logic as the correct way of thinking? In a random chance universe how do you explain uniformity of nature? And how do you explain objective morality? If you don’t think there is an objective rational standard for morality, then why are you here condemning Dr. Lisle for you consider to be lying?
I didn’t mean to say speed of light (I’m pressed for time and was rushing) but starlight distance is what I meant; which is an astrophysics related topic.
Are you implying Josef, that it’s the exact same processes for each of the things described on that website?
No, the purpose of the link/website was to demonstrate that what Eldon said was false. He said, “The theory of evolution at no time claims to explain everything in existence. It does however explain, quite well I might add, how biological, civil and social life changes.” which is false.
The theory of evolution was only ever meant to explain how biological life changes…that’s it.
Hi,
>The theory of evolution was only ever meant to explain how biological life changes…that’s it.
No, this is false. Evolution encompasses both geology and astronomy, or have you never heard of stellar evolution?
Micah
the ignored: “The theory of evolution was only ever meant to explain how biological life changes…that’s it.”
Well then, you need to write the good folks over at Harvard University and take up your case with them. And after you’re done doing that, I have a list of authors from my college text books you will need to “correct” as well.
Josef
The Bible also provides the foundation for modern science.
Nope.
www dot bibleandscience dot com slash science slash bibleandscience slash htm
tinyurl dot com slash AmazonGreekScience
Read the “Book Description”:
–the Greek emphasis on rationalism—a conviction that human reason could successfully unravel the mysteries of nature and make sense of the cosmos
–an early form of humanism—a pride and confidence in human potential despite the frailty and brief tenure of individual lives
–the drive to excel in every arena from the battlefield to the Olympic games and arts competitions
–an insatiable curiosity that sought understanding of both human nature and the world
–a fierce love of freedom and individualism that promoted freedom of thought—the prelude to science.
Josef
In order to even be able to do a scientific experiment, we must be able to rely on our senses, rely on logic, uniformity of nature…
Uniformity which we can’t have with an outside force (ie. any “god” who can change the laws of nature on a whim or in response to prayer)
…and an objective moral standard. None of these comport with the atheistic worldview. As an evolutionist how do you know your senses are even reliable?
There are NOT always reliable: Optical illusions, auditory illusions, plus even the sense of taste can be fooled by what one has tasted just before. Evolution doesn’t go for “perfection” but for what works good enough to get by.
How does your worldview explain those? Since you assume that your god can’t lie?
How do you know you can rely on logic as the correct way of thinking? In a random chance universe how do you explain uniformity of nature?
The universe is not “random chance”. The laws of nature have shown themselves to be on our scale of size (excluding quantum mechanics and excluding area around black holes) to be consistent, which they couldn’t be with an outside force like your god changing things at will.
And how do you explain objective morality
Morality came about as a survival trait for a social species. If you believe in “objective morality” Josef, may I remind you that it was YOU who said that if god ordered you to kill babies (as he did many times in the OT) that it would THEN be wrong NOT to kill babies!
If you don’t think there is an objective rational standard for morality, then why are you here condemning Dr. Lisle for you consider to be lying?
It presents us with an inaccurate picture of the world?
I said: “The Bible also provides the foundation for modern science.
The ignored: “Nope.
www dot bibleandscience dot com slash science slash bibleandscience slash htm
That’s nice, but the points that Dr. Henry Morris used aren’t my arguments. So this is a straw-man fallacy because it doesn’t address my arguments. My arguments are that we need the preconditions of intelligibility to be able to study the reality and make knowledge possible. And only the biblical God can justify the preconditions of intelligibility, thus only the Christian worldview makes science and studying the universe meaningful.
The ignored: “tinyurl dot com slash AmazonGreekScience
Read the “Book Description”:
I’ve already addressed this before: logic is contingent on the biblical God and apart from Him, Greeks wouldn’t have had logic to formulate or use. I.e., the Greeks were able to make discoveries because God exists.
I said: “In order to even be able to do a scientific experiment, we must be able to rely on our senses, rely on logic, uniformity of nature…
The ignored: “Uniformity which we can’t have with an outside force (ie. any “god” who can change the laws of nature on a whim or in response to prayer)”
Actually only with God can uniformity of nature exist. Otherwise, what rational basis do you have to assume that the future will be like the past? And remember, I’m not advocating just any God, I’m advocating the biblical God who promises to uphold the universe in a consistent way.
I said: “As an evolutionist how do you know your senses are even reliable?”
The ignored: “There are NOT always reliable: Optical illusions, auditory illusions, plus even the sense of taste can be fooled by what one has tasted just before. Evolution doesn’t go for “perfection” but for what works good enough to get by.”
How do you know that your sense are ever reliable? Just because they have survival value, i.e. “good enough to get by” it does not follow that your senses accurately represent reality.
The ignored: “How does your worldview explain those? Since you assume that your god can’t lie?”
Easy: because we’re fallen and we have imperfections due to our fallen state. This is a problem with us, not with God. And as a Christian I know my senses and abilities to reason are generally reliable. However, my ultimate standard is not my senses or my ability to reason, but the God of the Bible; the truth claims made in the Bible correct my senses and ability to reason. Unfortunately though, you as an atheist, are stuck at an arbitrary standard which cannot justify why you can generally rely on your sense or your ability to reason.
The ignored: “The universe is not “random chance”. The laws of nature have shown themselves to be on our scale of size (excluding quantum mechanics and excluding area around black holes) to be consistent, which they couldn’t be with an outside force like your god changing things at will.”
You’re right, the universe does not behave “randomly” because God upholds the universe in a consistent way (Gen 8:22). However, if atheism were true, then the universe would be random, hence there wouldn’t be any reason to believe the laws of nature would behave consistently. Why would physical matter be compelled to obey incorporeal laws? Only the Christian worldview can justify this.
the ignored: “Morality came about as a survival trait for a social species.”
Survival value doesn’t tell us what is morally true. My two eyes have survival value, but they don’t have truth value. Also, potentially theft, murder, and lying may actually increase someone’s quality of life and survival value, but that doesn’t mean they are ethical. In fact, some decisions that we would consider moral may actually hinder someone’s survival value.
The ignored: “If you believe in “objective morality” Josef, may I remind you that it was YOU who said that if god ordered you to kill babies (as he did many times in the OT) that it would THEN be wrong NOT to kill babies!”
And here we see your irrationality once again: on one hand, you’re attempting to refute the idea that there are such things as objective morality, but yet, you object to the idea that if God ordered babies to be killed then it would be immoral. But based on what standard of morality do you think you can judge the Bible by? In fact, what if murdering those babies increased the survival value of the population, would it then be a moral action, as you said yourself that morality was just a survival trait?
I said: “If you don’t think there is an objective rational standard for morality, then why are you here condemning Dr. Lisle for you consider to be lying?
The ignored: “It presents us with an inaccurate picture of the world?”
Even if true, so what? If there is no such thing as an objective moral standard, then there is nothing wrong with presenting an inaccurate picture of the world.
Josef,
By the way, you missed a lot of more substantial answers up there.
Lisle in response within my September 16, 2013 at 9:40 pm comment:
[Dr. Lisle: As Micah pointed out, the “and the world would be a horrible place” is not part of my argument.
It is just an extension of the fallacious example that the Nizkor Project has.
[Dr. Lisle: It is the extension that makes their example fallacious.]
To whit: “God must exist! If God did not exist, then all basis for morality would be lost and the world would be a horrible place!”
It consists of the idea that if god does not exist, then there is a horrible consequence of that idea. Just as your statement does, whether you include the “world being a horrible place” part, or not.
[Dr. Lisle: There is a difference between what is desirable and what is true. You have failed to realize this.
An appeal to consequences has this form:
1. if p then q.
2. q is undesirable.
3. therefore not p.
This argument is invalid because the desirability of q is irrelevant to the truth of q, and therefore irrelevant to the truth of p. The “world being a horrible place” may be undesirable, but that doesn’t make it false.
On the other hand, my argument is a modus tollens:
1. if p then q
2. not q
3. therefore, not p
This argument is valid. It is not a fallacy, no matter how much you want it to be.]
Just end their fallacy example with the supposed loss of morality and that IS your argument.
[Dr. Lisle: In addition to dropping their fallacious emotional appeal, they would have to also add that morality does have a logical basis as a second premise. Then their argument would be valid and sound. But it wouldn’t be an appeal to consequences at that point.]
After all, I think it’s safe to assume that you believe that morality is a good thing and that the world is better for it?
[Dr. Lisle: Yes, but that isn’t my argument for God.]
Lisle
And misrepresenting an argument is called the “straw-man fallacy.”
Too bad I did not do that.
[Dr. Lisle: Clearly you did. Please don’t continue to misrepresent my arguments.]
I do claim that apart from the biblical God morality would be meaningless.
Which is, again, the same kind of fallacy that they use as an example of the Appeal to Consequences of Belief.
[Dr. Lisle: No. The appeal to consequences appeals to the desirability of the consequent – not the truth of the consequent. Do you understand now?]
You just don’t tag on the extra emotional hook,
[Dr. Lisle: It’s the emotional hook (if used as a replacement for the truth value of the consequent) that makes it fallacious. It’s not a fallacy to point out that if the consequent is false, then so is the antecedent. In logic, we say, “That which implies what is false, is itself false.”]
but there is still one there, with your claim that “morality would be meaningless”.
[Dr. Lisle: Meaningless ≠ undesirable. Objective morality would be undefined and unjustified apart from the biblical worldview. Whether you desire that or not is irrelevant. It is not the case that objective morality is undefined and unjustified. Therefore God does exist.]
Lisle
And I further claim that morality is not meaningless.
How exactly does your god make morality “meaningful”
[Dr. Lisle: Aside from the book I’ve written on this, which apparently you haven’t read, and aside from the many articles I’ve written on this, which apparently you haven’t read, there are many discussions on this very blog on this issue. I’m guessing you haven’t read them. Briefly, God provides an objective basis for morality, one that is the same for all people since God is Creator of all and sovereign over all. That moral standard does not change with time because God does not change with time. God may change specific instructions to suit changing circumstances, but the underlying moral principles cannot change. The Christian worldview can account for the difference between what is (what God allows to happen in the universe) and what should be (what God has prescribed in His Word for people to do). God has given us the freedom to disobey his prescriptions, and our disobedience accounts for the difference between what is and what should be. And, though we have the power to disobey God, we have good rational reasons to obey His moral law – one of which is that God will hold us accountable to it.]
[The secular worldview cannot account for any of these things. Secular “morality” reduces to meaningless subjectivism, subject to the whims of the ever-changing opinions of people.]
especially since he’s not consistent about it. (ie. baby-killing which both you and Josef agree would be moral if your god commanded it)
[Dr. Lisle: God is perfectly consistent and always moral because He is always true to His own nature. God always has a morally commendable reason for His commands. The fact that He isn’t obligated to tell you what His reason is, is logically irrelevant.]
Lisle
Therefore, I can rationally conclude that God exists. This is modus tollens:
1. if p then q
2. not q
3. therefore not p
where p=”God doesn’t exist”, q=”morality is meaningless”.]
Except you have yet to show just how morality would be meaningless if your god did not exist. It’s a bald assertion.
[Dr. Lisle: Since I’ve written a book, a number of articles, produced a DVD, and had various dialogs on this very website on this topic, it’s pretty hard to defend the notion that I haven’t shown how morality would be meaningless apart from God. The ball is now in your court to prove me wrong; show how a non-Christian worldview can account for objective morality.]
Why would morality be meaningless without god? Would you be deprived of your reward in heaven or what?
[Dr. Lisle: I think my previous comments have answered that fairly thoroughly. If we are just non-designed chemical accidents, then there can be no morality because what one chemical does to another is morally irrelevant. When baking soda reacts with vinegar, it is neither “right” nor “wrong”, it is simply what happens. And baking soda has no choice in the matter anyway. Chemicals must act as they do according to the laws of nature. Ergo, if we are just chemicals, then we have no choice in what we do. And so it makes no sense to hold that a person is morally obligated to do anything, anymore than a box of baking soda is morally obligated to do anything.]
How did various societies come up with concepts of morality even without belief in your god anyway?
[Dr. Lisle: If I forgot to mention Romans 1:18-23, then I apologize. This passage clearly explains my position. According to the Bible all people do know God, and hence they have an innate knowledge of right and wrong. Many people work very hard to suppress their knowledge of God, and give glory to “nature” for what is rightly God’s. But they reveal their suppressed knowledge of God by appealing to things like objective morality, or universal invariant laws of logic, or uniformity in nature – things that would make no sense whatsoever apart from the biblical God.]
Again, your argument is just an appeal to emotion; a perfect example of the consequences of belief fallacy.
[Dr. Lisle: I hope you now see why that is not the case. If you need further clarification of the difference between the (valid) modus tollens and the fallacy of consequences of belief, I have some logic textbooks I can recommend to you. Just let me know.]
I suggest that you talk with the Nizkor Project people if you keep insisting that your fallacious argument is actually nothing of the sort. Let me know how it goes.
[Dr. Lisle: Sometimes when people realize that they can’t defend their position, they try to “bring in reinforcements” by appealing to other people or websites. I’m not inclined to go around correcting all the fallacious websites out there – not a good use of my time.]
Lisle
[Since modus tollens is valid, your only recourse (aside from accepting the argument and becoming a consistent Christian) …
Uh, “consistent”? Like for example: baby-killing is wrong UNLESS god commands it, then it’s MORAL? Is that how you xians are consistent?
[Dr. Lisle: That’s a dodge; you haven’t answered how you can have objective morality apart from Christianity. When your army commander tells you to advance, you advance. When he commands you to fall back, you fall back. Are you being consistent if you consistently obey your commanding officer? Of course. God is perfectly self-consistent, and whatever He does is morally commendable. Whether you emotionally like it or not is logically irrelevant. After all, in your view, your opinions are just chemical reactions in the brain – why should that have any merit at all? Why should baby-killing be fundamentally wrong in your view? You keep arguing as if human beings have intrinsic value, as if they have been made in the image of God and are valued by Him. But that makes no sense if people are chemical accidents like a can of oil.]
Lisle
…would be to argue that it is unsound due to a false premise – probably number 1. All you have to do is come up with some other worldview that makes it possible to justify objective, universal morality in a self-consistent way.
Actually, I do not. You made the claim that your god is the basis for morality in order to “prove” that he or she exists. You have to back up that claim. Or otherwise show that your god exists.
[Dr. Lisle: Since I’ve shown how morality stems from the biblical God (many, many, many times), it’s now on you to come up with some other system that do so. I don’t think you can.]
If he or she does not exist, so what? It would just mean that we’d be on our own in working out a moral code.
[Dr. Lisle: Any “moral code” that is invented by people is inherently subjective and non-absolute. It is subject to the whims of a society, and cannot be universal or invariant, and cannot therefore be genuine morality. Hitler tried what you are suggesting. Do you think that what he did was morally right? Just curious.]
Lisle
That’s what I’ve been pressing you to do.]
And you keep rejecting out of hand every possible reason for non-believers have for being moral.
[Dr. Lisle: So far no one has been able to provide a rational basis for objective morality on the secular view. At best they try to explain why people do behave a certain way – but this doesn’t account for morality which deals with how people should behave.]
Everything from it being a survival trait of the species
[Dr. Lisle: There’s an example of explaining (allegedly) why people do behave in a particular way – not why the should. On a secular worldview, why should I care about people who are not in a position to help me?]
to caring about our loved ones,
[Dr. Lisle: Why – on the secular worldview – should I care for others? Should I also care for other chemical accidents? Should I make sure the salt in my kitchen and the oil in my garage are happy? This view makes no sense.]
to wanting to continue civilization,
[Dr. Lisle: Why (on the secular worldview) would I be morally obligated to do that which continues civilization? As long as I survive, why – on your worldview – should I be concerned about other chemical accidents? Should I also be morally obligated to continue other “chemical accidents?” Should I do all I can to preserve and perpetuate flesh-eating bacteria? You see, the secular worldview just can’t make sense of morality.]
you reject simply because your god is not part of the equation.
[Dr. Lisle: Hopefully it is now clear that these view are rejected because they are not logically self-consistent. They lead to absurdity.]
All you, and Josef, have done is show that without your god belief, there would be nothing stopping you people from being outright criminals.
[Dr. Lisle: No – apart from God there would be no reason to call being a criminal “wrong.” You can say it emotionally displeases you when people commit crimes. But you would be unable to give a rational reason as to why it is wrong.]
Even worse, if one of you gets it into your head that your god wants you to kill someone, you have already built the mental framework to justify it!
[Dr. Lisle: Actually, not murdering is pretty important in Christianity. It’s one of the Ten Commandments. It is because we are made in the image of God that human life has objective value. Your (commendable) revulsion at killing people shows that you do believe in God in your heart of hearts. After all, such a revulsion would make no sense on the evolutionary worldview.]
[Clearly, God has the right to punish His creations for their disobedience – even by taking their life (which He gave then in the first place)! And God has the right to appoint representatives which act on His behalf in accordance with His laws. Hence, it is morally commendable for the government to use capital punishment against crimes that are worthy of death according to God’s Word. But apart from God, there would be absolutely no reason to value human life in the first place. Isn’t that obvious?]
Lisle
[Dr. Lisle: There is a difference between what is desirable and what is true. You have failed to realize this.
An appeal to consequences has this form:
1. if p then q.
2. q is undesirable.
3. therefore not p.
This argument is invalid because the desirability of q is irrelevant to the truth of q, and therefore irrelevant to the truth of p. The “world being a horrible place” may be undesirable, but that doesn’t make it false.
That’s the case here: the desirability of a “meaningless morality” is irrelevant to the truth of “god not existing”.
[Dr. Lisle: The desirability of a “meaningless morality” is indeed irrelevant to the truth of God’s existence. But that isn’t my argument, nor has it ever been about desirability. So you have committed a straw-man fallacy (again). My argument is that morality is meaningful (regardless of whether you or anyone else finds this desirable/undesirable), that morality could not be meaningful apart from the biblical God, and therefore God exists.]
People and societies have developed moral systems without your god, and with their own reasons.
[Dr. Lisle: No, they haven’t. People may deny God, but morality would be meaningless apart from Him. The fact that people do have a sense of morality shows that they do know in their heart-of-hearts that God exists. No one has ever been able to logically justify moral standard apart from God. At best, they explain behavior; but behavior is not morality.]
but, all you ever do is assert over and over that your god (and only your god) provides meaning for morality.
[Dr. Lisle: Actually, I’ve demonstrated this (repeatedly). Only the biblical God can account for the universal, unchanging, moral standards that we all know innately. This is because the nature of God is exactly what is needed for such standards; namely He is sovereign, omni-present, omnipotent, unchanging, and holds us accountable for our actions. We can know God’s moral standards because we are made in His image, and He has revealed Himself to all people. No one has been able to come up with any alternative system that can logically account for universal, unchanging moral standards.]
When I give reasons for secular morality, you just cavalierly dismiss each one…
[Dr. Lisle: Hardly. Instead, I have shown that your reasons do not stand up to rational scrutiny. Non-designed chemistry cannot account for the existence and properties of moral truths. You have yet to explain how it possibly could.]
with your chemical analogy, as if the chemical reactions in the human brain is the same as salt and pepper!
[Dr. Lisle: You have not explained why there is any relevant difference between the chemistry in our brain and any other chemical reaction. Why is it that (in your view) the chemistry in our brain is somehow responsible for morality, but not the chemistry taking place in a can of soda? If someone decided to use the fizz of a soda can to tell him “right” from “wrong”, why would this be unacceptable to you, but if they follow the chemistry in their brain that would be okay? Different people have different chemistry in their brains. So, on your view, wouldn’t they have different moral standards? Hopefully you see now why chemical reactions cannot be a logical basis for universal, unchanging, moral standards.]
Ex Me: “to caring about our loved ones”
[Dr. Lisle: Why – on the secular worldview – should I care for others? Should I also care for other chemical accidents? Should I make sure the salt in my kitchen and the oil in my garage are happy? This view makes no sense.]
That view makes no sense because you’ve equated humans, our relationships, and the chemical/neurological processes we have to inert, non-sentient salt and pepper??
[Dr. Lisle: What makes you think that sentience is a relevant difference? Moreover, how do you know that salt isn’t sentient, or that other people are sentient? In the Christian worldview, I can answer these questions. But you simply assume things with no thought. How is the chemistry in a person’s brain somehow so fundamentally different than the chemistry in a petri dish, such that one can somehow be relevant to morality while the other is not? For that matter, what about animals? Do they have a degree of self-awareness, and if so should we let them determine morality? These are the kinds of issues you’re going to have to think through if you want to contribute to any rational discussion on this topic.]
And you claim I distort your views?? It is not that “secularists” haven’t presented justification for morality; it’s that you just dismiss all the non-god-related reasons we put out, and LIE about us not having presented anything.
[Dr. Lisle: Hopefully, you are now beginning to see that you haven’t really given any justification for morality on the secular view. You’ve just asserted that it has something to do with brain chemistry somehow. But this does not explain why morality would be universal and unchanging since different people have different brain chemistry. And it does not make the leap from what is to what should be – and that is the heart of morality. So unless you have something more to offer, I have to conclude that the secular view cannot make sense of morality at all.
I like your reference to lying, because it shows that you really do know God. In the secular view, there is no rational reason to abstain from lying if it benefits my survival; it’s just a person following his brain chemistry. On the Christian worldview, lying is wrong because our sovereign Lord has so decreed, and will hold us accountable for our actions. So I don’t engage in it. I haven’t distorted your views at all; I’ve simply extended them to their logical conclusion – something that you have failed to do.]
At least with your “made in the image of god” reason for value of human life in your view, I actually bother to refute it. I show that your god’s actions show that he doesn’t treat “his image” very well and therefore must not value them all that much…(later in this post)
[Dr. Lisle: That’s going to be a tough case to make, considering that God willingly suffered an undeserved crucifixion, dying in the most horrible way possible so that we could enjoy His blessings for all eternity.]
Lisle
On the other hand, my argument is a modus tollens:
1. if p then q
2. not q
3. therefore, not p
This argument is valid. It is not a fallacy, no matter how much you want it to be.]
You still have to actually show “q”, where “q” = “morality is meaningless” if “p” = “god not existing”.
[Dr. Lisle: . I did that above. And I’ve done it many times before.]
Blind dismissals that compare the human system to “salt” and “pepper” or “vinegar and baking soda” won’t cut it, either.
[Dr. Lisle: In your view, there is no relevant difference between the human system, salt, or a petri dish. You seem to have arbitrarily decided that chemical systems that exhibit sentience are somehow more relevant to morality than those that don’t. But you have given absolutely no logical REASON for this claim. Nor is it apparent how chemistry, whether part of a sentient being or not, could possibly have anything to do with morality. Chemistry is about what is taking place and morality is about what should be taking place. Chemistry might explain what we do. But how can it possibly explain what we should do?]
Lisle
[Dr. Lisle: That’s a dodge; you haven’t answered how you can have objective morality apart from Christianity.
Xians have yet to show how you can claim to have objective morality in the first place. As is seen below, your system of morality is not even close to consistent, much less “objective”.
[Dr. Lisle: I don’t know how many times I should repeat the argument. Morality is necessarily objective (the same from one person to the next) because God is sovereign over all people. He holds all people to exactly the same standards of accountability (Acts 10:34, Deuteronomy 1:17). It just isn’t that hard to understand.]
When your army commander tells you to advance, you advance. When he commands you to fall back, you fall back. Are you being consistent if you consistently obey your commanding officer? Of course.
You may be…but: how consistent is your commanding officer if one day he says that it’s a crime to kill babies, and the next day he orders you to kill babies?
[Dr. Lisle: It seems that you did not understand the analogy. A commander may give a general order such as “stay in the barracks until otherwise notified.” He may then give notification that it’s time for battle and you should leave the barracks. It is not inconsistent to obey the commander in both cases. The commander has a good reason for both orders.]
You can’t really compare actions like that with “advancing” and “falling back” can you? You do know that those are just movements, and in and of themselves have no moral significance. Killing or not to kill unarmed civilians (ie. babies?) Whole different matter.
[Dr. Lisle: It seems you don’t understand what an analogy is. Yes, there is a difference – that’s always the case with an analogy. And there is a similarity. In this case the analogy was to help you understand that it is consistent and appropriate for a soldier to obey his commanding officer, even when the officer changes his orders for good reasons. You had erected a straw-man argument against Christianity by effectively claiming that God cannot give any exceptions to His commands lest He be irrational/inconsistent. The analogy (hopefully) has shown you that such a position is rather absurd. The world is complex and God knows that. His moral commands include appropriate exceptions (e.g., in general you should not kill people, but you may in self-defense, or as part of a just war, or as the civil magistrate for a capital crime). God has a morally commendable reason for all His laws and any exceptions that He specifies. Although God is under no obligation to explain to you what those reasons are, most of them are pretty obvious.]
You brag later on about how: not murdering is pretty important in Christianity. It’s one of the Ten Commandments. It is because we are made in the image of God that human life has objective value.
That “being made in his image” stuff does not stop your god when he wants to kill someone though, does it? Not “murdering” does not stop the xian/hebraic sword if god commands someone to be killed. Of course, the dodge is that in that case, it’s not actually “murder” is it? Even if it’s a kid who has to die.
[Dr. Lisle: This is another example of a straw-man argument against Christianity. The Bible actually teaches that WE are not to take a human life except under those rare circumstances that God has decreed are exceptions. People are God’s creations and so He rightly is the one to determine when they will die. It is therefore immoral for us to take a human life (except for those cases that God Himself has decreed are appropriate) since this right belongs to God. According to the Bible, we all have rebelled against God and therefore deserve death (Romans 3:23, 5:12, 6:23). It is only by God’s grace that any of us are allowed to live for any length of time at all. God determines when people die. It is morally right for God to execute the wicked. On occasion, God used Israel to execute His judgment on extremely wicked nations. Now you may not emotionally like this, but there is nothing illogical or immoral about it.]
So again, how valuable can “his image” be if he kills off those who never even had a chance to “sin”, much less do something that’s worthy of the death penalty!
[Dr. Lisle: You need to keep in mind that death is not the same thing as annihilation. God has never destroyed/annihilated any person He created. People are God’s creation and thus belong to Him. It is His moral right to take them when He deems fit. Now you ask why would God take a baby? Of course God does not answer to you; He is not obliged to tell you His reason, but He always has one because He is ultimately moral. We could speculate. One reason might be that God knows the future that the child would have had in this world, one leading perhaps to great wickedness that God has mercifully decided not to unleash on the world, nor the greater eternal torment for the child as a result of such wickedness. You may not emotionally like the way God rules His universe, but there is nothing illogical or immoral about it as you had claimed. You are not in a position to evaluate whether God had sufficient moral reasons for His actions because (1) you are wicked not righteous, and thus your view of morality is necessarily distorted, (2) you cannot see the “big picture” – only God has all knowledge, and (3) you have no basis for any sort of objective morality apart from God by which you could judge Him.]
In fact, in your god’s view, any “sin” is worthy of death, yes?
[Dr. Lisle: Correct. If that seems too harsh to you, it indicates that you have underestimated God’s holiness. There are only certain sins, however, where God has authorized human government to carry out the death sentence.]
Lisle
God is perfectly self-consistent, and whatever He does is morally commendable.
“Perfectly commendable”? Uh, by whose standards? Yours? Impossible since that’d place you above your own god….His own moral standards? I will deal with later…
[Dr. Lisle: God’s. God always acts in a way consistent with His nature and will – this is to say that He is necessarily moral. Any alternative leads to absurdity – as we have seen.]
For now: Ordering the deaths of babies is commendable? Having women marry their rapists is commendable? Slavery is commendable?
[Dr. Lisle: And now we get a list of things you don’t emotionally like. But this is totally irrelevant to the topic of morality. I don’t like it when people put anchovies on a pizza. But this doesn’t make it morally wrong! This shows that your position is based on emotion, not logical reasoning. It also shows that you don’t know the Bible very well. Where does God order the specific death of babies? The biblical penalty for rape is death – not marriage (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). If two unmarried consenting people were discovered engaged in premarital sex, then they were to be married. Slavery was primarily a voluntary way to get out of debt (Leviticus 25:47, Genesis 47:19), as you would know if you had read my articles on this very blog or done any research on the topic whatsoever.]
And this is the god whose values and morals you claim are unchanging? If that was truly the case, those laws would still be on the xian books. All that palaver about OT vs. NT just shows that your god does change.
[Dr. Lisle: Morality has not changed between the Old Testament and the New Testament as Christ affirms in Matthew 5:17-19. Why did you think otherwise?]
You can’t claim even that his underlying principles remain unchanged because to go from killing babies to being “pro-life” is one huge difference. Besides: A change in implementation of a law is still a change!
[Dr. Lisle: Another straw-man argument. God has always valued the life of babies, in the Old Testament and in the New. The penalty for taking the life of an unborn child is death (Exodus 21:22-23) – that should show you how serious this is. Again, you make the sweeping generalization fallacy in assuming that God cannot make any exceptions for good reasons for any rule ever. But this is a caricature of Christianity – not Christianity. Moral principles are identical between the two Testaments as Hebrews confirms (Hebrews 2:2). Why did you think otherwise? Did you have a reason?]
Now to deal with god’s own moral standards from earlier:
You claim at one point that your god can’t do anything against his nature, so he has a more consistent morality or “objective”.
[Dr. Lisle: It’s not just “more consistent.” Rather, God is the only rational foundation for objective, invariant, universal morality. Any alternative reduces to absurdity, as we have repeatedly seen.]
What is his nature? He can’t be pro-life because he keeps killing people, even young people.
[Dr. Lisle: straw-man fallacy. “Pro-life” is the position that a human being may not kill another human being, except under those strict circumstances where God allows it – self-defense, just war, capital crime. It is God’s right to take His own creations to Himself when He deems fit. That’s only logical.]
He can’t be truthful since he does order people (ex. the prophet Samuel) to lie (a lie of omission which, in a different comment, you seem to have no problem with)
[Dr. Lisle: You are really reaching here, and I think even you know it. God is truthful because everything He says is true. God did not order Samuel to lie (though even if He did that would not make God a liar; if I order you to swim, that doesn’t make me a swimmer). And there is nothing immoral about keeping some truth to oneself. Indeed, there is often wisdom in so doing.]
What is his nature? What are his moral standards?
[Dr. Lisle: Read the Bible. That’s what it’s for.]
If they’re not the same as what he lays down for us, which you’ve said once before I believe, then how is this verse to be explained?
Matthew 5:48 or Leviticus 19:2?
[Dr. Lisle: We are to emulate God’s character on a creaturely level, without obscuring the contrast between creation and Creator. God is loving, gentle, patient, etc. and thus we should be too. We should reflect these as being made in God’s image. But emulating God’s character does not mean that we should forget that we are His creations and not God Himself. There are differences. We should not try to take on the role of God, thinking that we are sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent, etc., because these properties belong to God alone. It’s really not that hard. Do you genuinely not understand, or are you just trolling?]
They pretty much say that god holds us to the same standards that he has. Yet we see in the bible itself, that he doesn’t even try to hold himself to such standards himself.
[Dr. Lisle: God is under no obligation whatsoever to follow rules that He has created for us. Nonetheless, God does adhere to the same moral principles that He commands us to follow. For example, the moral principle that people belong to God and thus He alone has the right to authorize an execution. Does God violate this principle? Never! The right to take vengeance belongs to the sovereign Lord (Hebrews 10:30). Does God violate this principle? Never. The mortal man, who does not take vengeance because He knows it belongs to God alone, is following exactly the same moral principle that God embraces when God does carry out vengeance. It’s just not that complicated.]
Lisle
[Clearly, God has the right to punish His creations for their disobedience –
Even when he basically set them up to fail in the so-called “garden of eden”?
[Dr. Lisle: “Set them up to fail”??!?!??!? You must be joking! They had only ONE RULE and it was an incredibly easy one!
Think:
— before eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil they had no way to know that disobeying “god” was wrong. After all, they did not have knowledge of good and evil yet!
[Dr. Lisle: They did have knowledge of good because they had knowledge of God and God is good. They did not have experiential knowledge of evil for the obvious reason that they had not yet committed any evil acts before they took from the tree. The tree was a test to see how they would obtain further knowledge of good and evil. Would they rely on God’s Word, or would they test right and wrong by their own arbitrary standards? They failed that test, and it’s really the same test that you are failing in this very dialog. You’ve decided that you can set up your own system of morality, just as Adam and Eve did. They did what was right in their own eyes, and as their descendants we have inherited a tendency to do the same (Deuteronomy 12:8). The problem is: any “morality” we invent will necessarily NOT be objective, universal, or unchanging because of our nature as finite, imperfect beings. And ultimately, God will not judge people by their standards – He will judge them by His standard, and that will determine where they spend eternity. So that’s obviously the only one that ultimately matters.
Also, how much can your god really “value” human life when he does this stuff?
[Dr. Lisle: I noticed that a very important verse didn’t make it onto your list. John 3:16. Yes, God sent His own Son, God incarnate died in the most horrible way possible so that people can be saved. While we were still in a state of wicked rebellion against our King, he suffered in our place so that we wouldn’t have to (Romans 5:7-8). No one else has ever expressed love like that.
1) when “jesus” allegedly arrived, god did not announce to the entire world that there was a method of salvation available.
[Dr. Lisle: Actually, God announced to Adam and Eve that a Savior – one of Eve’s descendants, would crush the serpent’s head, thereby destroying the power of sin and making salvation possible. Noah also was a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5). So, people have had at least some knowledge of salvation from the beginning. The problem is: people don’t want to be saved. The Bible makes this very clear. John 3:19. Indeed, all people know God, but suppress that truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-19). It is only by God’s grace that He grants repentance to some of us. By the way, God is under no moral obligation to save anyone. We all rightly deserve death and hell (Romans 3:23, 5:12, 6:23). The condemnation of wicked people is morally just.]
Instead it was up to people to take the news to the “new world” centuries later. How many of those people could have been “saved” otherwise?
[Dr. Lisle: None. Psalm 53:2-3.]
How much does that really say about how much he “values” human life.
[Dr. Lisle: It shows that He values human freedom. People don’t want God, and so God allows many of them to go their own way, and reap the eternal destruction that they desire (Romans 1:28).]
2) he orders the death of babies and children in the OT several times for actions their parents do. If their parents did something wrong, just punish them!
[Dr. Lisle: Where did you get that idea? The only thing I can think of that even comes close to God condoning the death of babies is when He would use Israel to wipe out a desperately wicked nation, i.e. during war. Even then, those babies belong to God and it is His moral right to take them when He deems fit. And in most cases, the children were spared if possible (Deuteronomy 20:13-14). Again, you are thinking emotionally, not rationally.]
Some try to dodge that by saying that the kids/babies would have caused trouble later on, but the fact is that in one case, Midianite virgin girls were allowed to be kept for the Isrealite soldiers. They would have the potential to cause far more trouble as they’d have been older than the babies were, who were killed.
[Dr. Lisle: Not by God’s decree. The Bible records the wicked actions of people; that doesn’t mean it endorse those actions. This is hermeneutics 101.]
3)women were made to marry their rapists…who just had to pay a fine
[Dr. Lisle: Wrong. Rape incurred the death penalty (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). Why do you keep making straw-man arguments? Are you afraid you cannot refute what the Bible actually teaches?]
4)bible being pro-slavery
[Dr. Lisle: because welfare is just so much better than training someone to become financial responsible. /sarcasm ]
5)hell as opposed to limbo or just oblivion…Nope….you have to suffer forever for displeasing god, even if you’ve never heard of him, or how to placate him!
[Dr. Lisle: Ah, but limbo or oblivion would be IMMORAL. You as a wicked and inconsistent mortal might let a murderer go free with no penalty – as unjust as that would be. But God is righteous. And therefore the penalty for all sin will be paid. We’ve all sinned against an infinitely holy God, and thus our right penalty is infinite. People will either receive Christ’s payment for their sins, or they will pay for their own for eternity. And of course, all people have not only “heard of” God but know God since this knowledge has been hardwired into them by God (Romans 1:18-20). NO ONE will be able to claim ignorance on judgment day.]
Doesn’t sound like the being who set all that up places much value on our lives (ie. “his image”) to me.
[Dr. Lisle: Since all people have committed high treason against their sovereign King, and rightly deserve death and eternal punishment… How else can you account for the fact that God humbled Himself and suffered the worst kind of torment on the cross to pay for our sins? Did He do this because he doesn’t value people? Your ideas about God are certainly contrary to what the Bible teaches.]
Lisle
…even by taking their life (which He gave then in the first place)!
[Dr. Lisle: Everything in the universe is ultimately God’s creation and belongs to Him. We forfeit our life when we win. It is only by His mercy that we are allowed to live at all after we have sinned.]
So, parents have the right to kill their children??
[Dr. Lisle: No, because children ultimately belong to God. It’s not difficult.]
Aren’t you people supposed to be “pro-life”?
[Dr. Lisle: Of course, apart from Christianity, why not kill babies, or adults for that matter? What would be the moral problem – in a secular universe – with one chemical accident eliminating another?]
Besides, your god has a predilection for killing babies.
[Dr. Lisle: Maybe your god does. But not the biblical God.]
What did they do to deserve death?
[Dr. Lisle: Sinned. The Bible indicates that we are all sinners from conception (Psalm 51:5). It is only by God’s grace that any of us live for any time at all.]
Lisle
And God has the right to appoint representatives which act on His behalf in accordance with His laws. Hence, it is morally commendable for the government to use capital punishment against crimes that are worthy of death according to God’s Word.
So you’ve just justified the killing of homosexuals, witches, blasphemers, etc. I hope people like you never get into gov’t! Just look at your fellows in the christian reconstruction movement who want to institute Old Testament law and punishments. You talk just like them.
[Dr. Lisle: This again shows that your reasoning is nothing but emotional preferences. There is nothing logical at all in your thinking. Of course, the more our government deviates from the Bible’s instructions, the more problems we have. The fact that you don’t emotionally like God’s laws is utterly irrelevant.]
Lisle
But apart from God, there would be absolutely no reason to value human life in the first place. Isn’t that obvious?]
No. It isn’t. What is obvious is that any reason that any secularist would give for valuing human life…
[Dr. Lisle: Let’s examine the reasons you list for valuing human life in a secular worldview to see if they stand up to logical scrutiny. If they don’t, then you will have proved my point that apart from God there is no apparent reason to value human life. Correct?]
(every person is unique, …
[Dr. Lisle: Every snowflake is unique. Is it therefore immoral to destroy a snowflake?]
caring for one’s family and friends, …
[Dr. Lisle: In your worldview, “caring” is just a chemical reaction in the brain. Frogs also have chemical reactions in their brain. Would it be immoral to kill a frog. Chemical reactions also occur in cans of soda. Would it be immoral to drink a can of soda, or to destroy one?]
wanting society to function so one’s heirs can keep living, …
[Dr. Lisle: This again is an emotional preference, not a logical reason. One’s heirs will eventually die no matter what you do. A desire for immortality via lineage makes some degree of sense in a Christian worldview – but in the secular worldview it’s just chemical reactions giving rise to other chemical reactions. In the atmosphere of Titan there are chemical reactions giving rise to chemical reactions – does this constitute morality? If not, then what is your logical reason for insisting that some chemical reactions are more relevant to morality than others? You mentioned “sentience” earlier; but aside from emotional preferences, how is that in any way relevant to morality?]
basic empathy …
[Dr. Lisle: Empathy makes sense in the Christian worldview. We should care about people because they are made in God’s image. But why should I care about chemical accidents? Again, you haven’t given any relevant reason why I should care about some chemical reactions and not others. You simply state as if it’s obvious that sentient beings deserve a special status and have rights – but that only makes sense in the Christian worldview. In the secular worldview sentience is just a complex chemical reaction. How does chemistry lead to morality?]
and the consequences of one’s actions) …
[Dr. Lisle: When chemistry interacts with chemistry, some chemicals are destroyed and others are created, with no net gain or loss of energy. How could this possibly lead to a view of what should be?]
mean nothing to you, since you keep blathering on about how without your god, there is “absolutely no reason to value human life”.
[Dr. Lisle: Ah, but these things DO mean something to me, because I am a Christian. So of course I should have empathy for others – they are made in God’s image, and I should be concerned about society and the consequences of my actions, because God will hold me accountable. The problem is that none of these things make sense as reasons for morality in a secular worldview. You are stealing concepts from the Christian worldview to support your own; but this is inconsistent. Your concern for other people is admirable, but is inconsistent with your profession that people are just chemical accidents of nature. That’s the problem with your worldview. It is self-refuting. It cannot rationally account for morality, yet you insist that some things are wrong. The Christian worldview alone can make sense of morality. Do you now understand?]
Isn’t the fact that our lives are finite and unique gives them greater value than if all this is just some “stage rehearsal” for some other life?
[Dr. Lisle: Snowflakes are finite and unique, but that doesn’t mean that they have any intrinsic value. You have committed no crime when you scrape snow off the sidewalk. For that matter, every slug on this planet is unique. But that doesn’t mean that they have any intrinsic value. In fact, without God, nothing can have intrinsic value. “Value” is a conscious assessment of worth or importance – what could be equitably exchanged for something. People assign value to things, but that is subjective, not intrinsic – it will differ from person to person. Something may have great value to one person, but no value to another. But this “value” is imposed and is ultimately arbitrary. Only if there is a mind that is sovereign over the universe can anything have objective/intrinsic value because it would still have value regardless of what people think.]
What is obvious is that without your god belief, there is nothing to restrain you from all sorts of crimes. That says more about the xian so-called “morality” than it does the secularists.
[Dr. Lisle: Apart from God (whether you believe in Him or not), there would be no logical reason to call anything “wrong.” You are again confusing behavior with morality. A belief might motivate a person to behave in a certain way, but this is utterly irrelevant to the issue of morality – what actually should be the case. Your displeasure that people might commit all sorts of crimes is an indication that you do know God, for without Him you could not rationally call anything wrong.]
It’s horrifying to think that you people teach that nihilistic stuff to your children under the guise of “this is what secularists believe” or “this is what their worldview really means”…and you complain about me misrepresenting your arguments??
[Dr. Lisle: Oh the irony! In your worldview, children are merely the inevitable result of chemistry. Why would you care what they are taught… unless of course you secretly believe that children are made in the image of God and therefore have intrinsic value? And yes, you have severely misrepresented the Bible; but what is worse is that you continue to do so even after I have pointed this out and listed the verses that contradict you. Of course, there is no reason for you to behave morally on your worldview, so this isn’t surprising.]
Lisle
Your (commendable) revulsion at killing people shows that you do believe in God in your heart of hearts. After all, such a revulsion would make no sense on the evolutionary worldview.]
And what does it say that my aversion includes killings that are allegedly ordered by your god?
[Dr. Lisle: That reveals your sin nature. God has written His law in your heart, but you have distorted it in sin, such that you think the punishment of degenerately wicked people is wrong. So, you have again unwittingly demonstrated the truth of the Bible in two ways: (1) You recognize that there is a moral code – this would make no sense apart from Christianity. And (2) your view of morality is warped, which confirms your sin nature (Isaiah 5:20).
Even more: What does it say when you claim that an aversion to killing shows one to be a god believer yet neither you nor Josef have any problem with killing babies if your god were to order it?
[Dr. Lisle: We ought to have a healthy aversion to murder since people are made in God’s image. But that doesn’t mean that there are no circumstances under which we cannot morally take a life – e.g. self-defense. You have again committed the sweeping generalization fallacy. When a society is unwilling to invoke capital punishment on an incorrigible murderer, this shows that the people are immoral, because they are willing to unleash this murderer into society, putting everyone in danger. Justice calls for an appropriate punishment for a given crime.
Your question to Josef was a bit unfair because the only circumstances under which the killing of a human baby would ever go unpunished is during a just war, and only in the most vile, wicked nations. Most of the time, women and children were spared if possible (Deuteronomy 20:13-14). The fact that you criticize Josef for his answer shows that your thinking is emotional, not rational. I.e. you believe what you want to be true, regardless of how reasonable it is. Your entire argument against Christianity boils down to this: “I don’t emotionally like the things God does. Therefore Christianity is false.” But of course, this is the appeal to consequences fallacy.]
Lisle said:
” Your entire argument against Christianity boils down to this: “I don’t emotionally like the things God does. Therefore Christianity is false.” But of course, this is the appeal to consequences fallacy.]”
My argument is that you can’t base any system of morality on your god because he’s morally inconsistent.
[Dr. Lisle: In order to judge the morality of God, you would need to have an objective moral standard. But such a standard cannot exist in an atheistic worldview. In an atheist universe, what happens simply happens. There’s no “right” or “wrong” about it.]
Remember you saying, along with Josef, that it’d be morally wrong to not kill babies if god commanded it?
[Dr. Lisle: In an atheistic universe, why would it be morally wrong to kill anyone? People are simply one type of chemistry in the atheist worldview, so why do you single them out as having more intrinsic value than other types of chemistry? That’s what you haven’t been able to answer thus far.]
This is an Appeal to Consequences Fallacy:
“My argument is that morality is meaningful (regardless of whether you or anyone else finds this desirable/undesirable), that morality could not be meaningful apart from the biblical God, and therefore God exists”
[Dr. Lisle: No. It is a modus tollens which is always valid. It seems you do not know what the “appeal to consequences fallacy” is. It is arguing that something is true because it would be desirable, or false because it would be undesirable. The argument I’ve put forth has nothing whatsoever to do with desirability, and thus cannot be appeal to consequences. I even spelled it out to make this obvious to you: “regardless of whether you or anyone else finds this desirable/undesirable.” If you would like to learn about logic and spotting logical fallacies, I have written a book on the topic called “Discerning Truth.” It’s available at Amazon.]
Lisle said:
“In order to judge the morality of God, you would need to have an objective moral standard.”
Define “objective”.
[Dr. Lisle: “objective”: having a reality independent of the human mind, and thus not differing from one person to the next. Something is objective if it is the same for all people, and exists independently of their thoughts or perceptions. Objective morality can never be justified in an atheistic universe.]
You god is not even consistent, much less objective. A point you evaded by saying that sentence quoted above!
[Dr. Lisle: God is perfectly consistent. If He were not, then there would be no basis for the law of non-contradiction. This law exists because all truth is rooted in God, and God cannot contradict/deny Himself. You haven’t really demonstrated any inconsistency in God; you’ve merely pointed out that God does some things that you don’t understand or don’t personally like. But there is no contradiction. But hypothetically, if there were a contradiction, how could you argue that this is wrong, since the law of non-contradiction is based on the Christian worldview?]
Before bragging that it’s only your cult and ONLY your cult that has an “objective moral standard”, the onus is on you to prove it.
[Dr. Lisle: “Cult” – that’s a question-begging epithet. Regarding proving that Christianity alone has rational justification for objective, universal moral standards – I have done that. I’ve written a book on that very topic “The Ultimate Proof of Creation” and have discussed the issue on this very blog. God is sovereign over all creation, He is our Creator and holds all people accountable to the same standard; consequently, morality is necessarily objective and universal in the Christian worldview. Morality can only be subjective and arbitrary in the atheistic worldview.]
I’m sure every secular country in the world would be interested to know that their system of laws has no “objective” basis.
[Dr. Lisle: They do have an objective basis for laws – in the Christian worldview!]
Lisle said:
“[Dr. Lisle: In an atheistic universe, why would it be morally wrong to kill anyone? People are simply one type of chemistry in the atheist worldview, so why do you single them out as having more intrinsic value than other types of chemistry? That’s what you haven’t been able to answer thus far.]”
We are sentient; we have feelings, we have emotions, we are able to think.
[Dr. Lisle: Since (in your worldview) feelings, emotions, and thinking are just chemical reactions, why is there any moral obligation to favor these particular chemical reactions over those of rusting metal? Why are we morally obligated to protect “feelings” chemistry but not “fellings?” That is the question that you have not been able to answer so far. You arbitrarily pick some types of chemistry and assert that they have moral value. Why?]
You just keep pretending that “in the atheistic worldview” there is no difference between rusting iron and the reactions that give us life.
[Dr. Lisle: I understand that “there is a difference” between rusting iron, the chemistry associated with “thinking,” the fizzing of baking soda and vinegar, and the decay of an apple. These are four different chemical reactions. But why do you select only one of them and assert that we have some king of moral obligation to it? THAT’S what I’m asking you to answer. Simply asserting that it is different from the other three is not sufficient because each of these four chemical reactions is different from the other three.]
I keep saying that; just because you don’t like the answer does not mean that I have not answered it. Kindly stop lying by saying that I have not answered it.
[Dr. Lisle: You haven’t given any answer as to why some chemical reactions have moral value in your worldview, while others do not. You just assert that they do. Why should we protect “feelings” chemistry, but not “fellings” (rusting metal) chemistry? Saying, “because we have feelings” does not answer the question as to why “feelings” should enjoy moral obligation and not “fellings.”]
[Let me give an example. Suppose that Tom contends that rusting metal is the most important chemical reaction in the world. He says, “We dare not prevent metal from rusting. That would be morally wrong! People who try to prevent metal from rusting should go to prison!” And the process of metal becoming rust we shall call “fellings.” Now suppose I asked Tom why he thinks we are morally obligated to the process of rusting metal. Tom , “because rusting iron has fellings!” Now, does that in any way whatsoever rationally answer the question? Tom has given no reason why “fellings” chemistry has any kind of moral value at all, let alone more moral value than any other chemical reaction.]
[Why (in your worldview) should we protect those chemical reactions we call “thinking,” “sentience,” “feelings,” or “emotions?” It won’t do to simply state that we have these chemical reactions. I also have some rusting metal. But that doesn’t impart any moral value to it. How can a collection of chemical reactions have any objective moral value whatsoever?]
I have news for you: In the “atheistic worldview” (as if atheists can be held to any “worldview” other than a lack of belief in gods!) even we know that the reactions of the chemicals in our brains is what leads us to have emotions, memories and cognitive abilities. As is shown when the brain is damaged or aged.
[Dr. Lisle: Irrelevant. We all agree that chemistry is involved in human thought. Now, in your worldview, apparently, thinking IS chemistry – with no spiritual component. If that’s the case, if “thinking,” “sentience,” and “feelings” are just terms we give for the chemistry that happens to be taking place in your skull, then why do you feel any moral obligation to such chemistry? Why do you not also seek to protect the chemistry of “fellings” that happens to be taking place in your garage? If someone argued that we are morally obligated to protect “fellings” chemistry more than “feelings” chemistry, could you give any rational counterargument?]
If you think that there’s some spiritual component, feel free to show it.
[Dr. Lisle: I demonstrated that previously with a modus tollens, showing that it is a necessary precondition for rationality. Did you read it? Did you understand it?]
No analogies; but actual evidence please. You are supposed to be the scientist, after all, correct?
[Dr. Lisle: Already done. See my answers in your previous posts.]
You fail to understand what you are actually saying whenever you say things like
1) “We ought to have a healthy aversion to murder since people are made in God’s image.” Or
[Dr. Lisle: Do you suppose it’s possible that maybe you are the one who does not understand what I wrote? Do you have any evidence that I do not understand my own claims?]
2) “In an atheistic universe, why would it be morally wrong to kill anyone? “?
[Dr. Lisle: I’m very much looking forward to your answer to that question. Do you have one?]
You are admitting that without your god belief, YOU and people like you see no value in human life.
[Dr. Lisle: Straw-man fallacy. Without the existence of God (regardless of who does or does not believe in Him), there could be no objective value for human life, or anything else. How can anything have objective value in an atheistic universe? My argument deals with reality: what is the case, not what people believe or perceive to be the case, or what they believe. So you haven’t really understood the argument thus far. Do you understand now? I’m happy to clarify further if needed.]
Such an attitude is obviously detrimental to the human race. That’s a simple statement of fact, and not an “emotional” argument.
[Dr. Lisle: The word “detrimental” assumes a standard of morality by which we can evaluate what is “good” or “bad” for the human race. But on an atheistic system, there is no “good” or “bad” about anything. The human race in your view is simply a collection of chemical accidents, just as the lakes of methane on Titan are chemical accidents.]
[Of course, you do know that people have objective value, and so I trust that you know that murder is wrong, and that you do have a sense of right and wrong. But that shows that you do know in your heart-of-hearts the biblical God. Your beliefs about morality, science, logic, rationality, and so forth just simply don’t comport with an atheistic outlook. These beliefs confirm exactly what the Bible teaches about people in Romans 1:18-25 (You really should read this passage at some point). God has made Himself inescapably known to all people, but most people don’t like God at all and therefore suppress the truth in unrighteousness. That’s an emotional reaction, not a logical response. I certainly hope you don’t continue on that path. But in any case, I think you’ll have to agree that you certainly have not been ignored. 🙂 ]
(every person is unique, …
[Dr. Lisle: Every snowflake is unique. Is it therefore immoral to destroy a snowflake?]
Now you’re just being balls-out stupid.
[Dr. Lisle: That’s an ad hominem fallacy. Name calling is the last resort of those who have lost the debate and know it.]
Do snowflakes feel? Do they have emotions, sentience?
[Dr. Lisle: How would that be remotely relevant? In your view, emotions and sentience are just chemical reactions. Why do you treat them as if they were more than chemical reactions? You have not explained why “feelings” chemistry is fundamentally different from “fellings” chemistry – as I had explained previously.]
What IS it with you and your strawmen, Lisle?
[Dr. Lisle: Can you demonstrate any place where I have misrepresented the atheistic view? If not, then your statement is merely the fallacy of the complex question.]
So what if our emotions and whatnot are chemical reactions?
[Dr. Lisle: For some reason you seem to think that we are morally obligated to encourage some types of chemical reactions, and not others. I’m asking you why. Why do you single out some chemical reactions and not others? Why is “thinking” and “feeling” chemistry somehow more worthy of protection than the “fellings” of rusting metal?]
Those particular chemical reactions are what gives us the ability to think, to feel, etc.
[Dr. Lisle: And “fellings” are what give iron the ability to turn to rust. Why do you not defend “fellings” chemistry with the same vigor that you defend “feelings” and “thinking” chemistry? It seems that you are being very inconsistent. I’m asking you to be rational, and provide a logical reason for your belief.]
Just read any neurological journal that details a person with brain damage.
[Dr. Lisle: I could equally well say, “Just read a chemistry book, and it will show you that iron under certain conditions will rust.” Okay. So what? Why do you think that “thinking” and “feelings” chemistry is somehow more important than “fellings” chemistry – i.e. rusting iron? Why are we morally obligated to one and not the other?]
Where is there any room for a spirit? Even more: Why is there any need for a spirit, or god to have emotions or feelings?
[Dr. Lisle: Apart from God, there could be no universal, objective morality. What happens in an atheistic universe simply happens – there can be no right or wrong about it. We’ve covered this before so I will not repeat it here. As to people having a non-material component, for one thing, it makes rationality possible. If people were just chemistry and nothing more, then there could be no rationality. Here’s why: rationality involves the ability to consider the various options and then chose the best. But chemicals have no choice at all. They must react according to the predetermined laws of nature. Second, if people are just chemistry and nothing more, then there would be no rational reason to elevate their importance above any other chemical reaction. If I rejected the immaterial aspect of humanity, then I’d be in the same conundrum that you are in; I would have no logical reason to think that human beings have any more value than rusting metal.]
Easy: You want there to be. Because you believe that without your god, life is meaningless.
[Dr. Lisle: Now you are projecting. That is, you are accusing me of something that is actually true only of you. I have shown here and other places that only the Christian worldview can account for those things necessary for logic, for science, for morality. Apart from the Christian worldview, none of those things could be rationally justified. So, it is a rational necessity to believe in God. Therefore, it follows that any rejection of God cannot be rational. That is, the reason you reject God is because you do not want to submit to Him. You do know God of course; this is obvious by the fact that you believe that humans are not merely chemical reactions like rusting metal, and that there is an objective moral code applying universally. Such things would be meaningless and unjustified apart from God. But you don’t emotionally like God, and hence you profess to disbelieve in Him. The Bible explains this situation masterfully in Romans 1:18-23.]
If that’s what you want to believe, fine:
[Dr. Lisle: Actually, chemistry cannot “want” to believe anything. Chemistry just happens – there is no choice in the matter. And so if you really believe that I am just a collection of chemical reactions, then your statement makes no sense.]
[vulgarity removed.]
[Dr. Lisle: As you can see on the page “Rules for posting comments,” vulgarity/profanity is not allowed and may result in permanent banning. Actually, such comments make you look bad anyway. They tend to occur when a person has no logical rebuttal and knows it.]
Lisle, quoting me:
“Easy: You want there to be. Because you believe that without your god, life is meaningless.”
[Dr. Lisle: Now you are projecting. That is, you are accusing me of something that is actually true only of you. ”
Huh? I don’t believe that life is meaningless without your god, what are you talking about?
[Dr. Lisle: I was referring to your first sentence. It seems that you really want there to not be a God, but you simultaneously believe in objective morality – which is only rationally justified in the Christian worldview. I believe in God because His existence is a rational necessity for knowledge – including the justification of objective morality. Based on your responses, I must conclude that you reject God for emotional reasons – not logical ones.]
Lisle:
“I have shown here and other places that only the Christian worldview can account for those things necessary for logic, for science, for morality.”
Wrong. If we used the xian worldview as a basis for Morality, we’d still have slavery, apostates would be killed, as would “witches”.
[Dr. Lisle: That’s the fallacy of irrelevant thesis. Namely, the fact that you don’t personally like some aspects of God’s moral law is irrelevant to question of whether morality is based on God’s law or some other foundation. We’ve seen that any alternative to God’s law cannot account for objective morality at all. Hence, the biblical God is the foundation of morality (as well as logic and science), regardless of your personal wishes on the matter. If you don’t personally like the foundation of a building, the building nonetheless continues to stand because of its foundation. You argument is akin to this: “I don’t like concrete at all. Therefore buildings cannot be founded on concrete foundations.” You may not emotionally like that the Christian worldview is the only rational foundation for objective morality. But it remains so nonetheless. You haven’t been able to come up with any rational alternative in all our exchanges.]
Other cultures had developed similar moral codes to that of the bible way before the bible was written…ex) Hammurabi
[Dr. Lisle: First, the Bible records the creation of the universe (Genesis 1:1), and so its earliest chapters predate all other written materials. Only later would these be incorporated into Genesis by Moses. Second, most of the alternative creation stories and law codes actually post-date the earliest written Scriptures, as demonstrated in Bill Cooper’s book, “The Authenticity of the book of Genesis.” Third, logical primacy is irrelevant to chronological discovery. My claim is that the Christian worldview provides the rational justification for objective morality, regardless of when the Bible was written. The Bible teaches that God has written His laws on our hearts (Romans 2:15), so people have an awareness of objective morality even before reading the Bible and discovering the foundation of that morality. This includes Hammurabi. So yes, even the Babylonians had an awareness of morality – because the Bible is true. The point is that objective morality would not be possible if the Christian worldview were not true. You have helped me demonstrate this by failing to come up with any alternative that can justify objective morality.]
As for the xian worldview being the way to account for Science? Not a chance. Why? Your justification, noted elsewhere, for that idea: The uniformity and consistency of the laws of nature that make science possible.
[Dr. Lisle: Is that just a bald assertion? Or do you have an alternative worldview that can logically justify the uniformity and consistency in the laws of nature? I’d love to hear it! If you don’t have an alternative, then we can dismiss your claim as an unfounded assertion.]
Yet Danny Faulkner recently said here
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/light-travel-time-problem) that god “miraculously” speed up the speed of light in order to account for us being able to see stars millions and more light years away in a universe that’s supposed to be young.
Can’t have it both ways, Lisle: You can’t claim that your worldview is the basis for science because it’s the only worldview that accounts for the uniformity of natural laws, THEN throw miracles in there whenever observations of nature leads to evidence that you people have chosen to disallow!
[Dr. Lisle: This is a bifurcation fallacy. And it’s a really obvious one too, and shows that you haven’t thought through the issue. Effectively your claim is “Either God upholds the universe in a uniform way 100% of the time, or miracles happen all the time with no predictability and would make science impossible.” Do you see why this is a false-dilemma? There’s an obvious third option: God upholds the universe in a uniform way most of the time, and occasionally performs a miracle. Miracles are by definition rare. The laws of nature describe the consistent and predictable way that God normally upholds His creation – but there is no logical reason to assume that God must always do things the way He normally does things. Science will work perfectly well if nature is 99.9% uniform. If a miracle happens, we can always repeat the conditions and verify scientifically that this is not what normally happens.]
[The problem with your worldview (one problem anyway) is that there would be no basis for any uniformity whatsoever! In a chance universe, there is no rational reason to expect any laws at all, let alone unchanging universal mathematical laws that are at least partially understandable by human reasoning. Can you rationally account for these things apart from Christianity? If not, then there is no basis for science in your worldview.]
You know: That statement of faith that you creationist groups take which says, in one form or another: that no evidence, real or imagined, can be valid if it contradicts the bible.
That is the OPPOSITE of the scientific method, not the basis FOR it.
[Dr. Lisle: Again, you just haven’t thought through what you write. Apart from the Christian worldview, as articulated in the Bible, we would have no rational reason whatsoever to expect any uniformity in nature whatsoever. There would be no logical foundation for the scientific method since there would be no assurance that God upholds the universe in a consistent and predictable way with patterns that we can eventually discover. We could have no rational confidence in science. And thus, all scientific evidence whatsoever would have no rational value – there would be no reason to trust it. Science cannot undermine its own foundation without destroying itself. Isn’t that obvious?]
Lisle said:
“Apart from the Christian worldview, none of those things could be rationally justified. So, it is a rational necessity to believe in God. Therefore, it follows that any rejection of God cannot be rational. That is, the reason you reject God is because you do not want to submit to Him. ”
Except that I just showed that your “rationalizations” don’t stand up to scrutiny at all…
[Dr. Lisle: Where? Certainly not on this blog. And it should be easy to do. All you have to do is come up with some worldview that can rationally justify uniformity in nature, objective morality, human rationality and freedom, and the existence and properties of laws of logic. I’ve been asking you to do just one of these things (justify objective morality) and you haven’t been able to do even that in… well, I’ve lost track of how many times you’ve posted. By failing to provide any rational foundation for objective morality on your worldview, you have actually helped demonstrate my case.]
Lisle preparing an ad-hom attack:
[Dr. Lisle: No – an ad hominem attack is the attempt to dismiss a claim by undermining the person making the claim rather than dealing with the claim itself. Name-calling would be one example. I haven’t done that with you. Rather, my comment which you repost below was intended to help you to construct a proper argument by explaining what would be necessary for you to do so. So far, you’ve merely engaged in question-begging epithets and fallacies of irrelevant thesis. For example, I have asked you repeatedly to explain on your worldview why you think that some chemical reactions (thinking, feeling, emotions) have moral obligation while other chemical reactions (rusting metal, fizzing of soda) do not. Your responses so far are effectively, “Well they’re different.” But that’s irrelevant. Yes I know they are different: rusting metal is not the same as fizzing soda which is not the same as the chemistry in the brain. But you have given absolutely no reason as to why you single out some chemical reactions as having moral obligation, and not others.]
[I point out below that you actually do have a rational reason – but that reason is not compatible with your professed worldview.]
“You do know God of course; this is obvious by the fact that you believe that humans are not merely chemical reactions like rusting metal, …”
Uh no. It is the neurological reactions in our brains that are totally different then that of rusting metal which gives us our sentience. When our brains are damaged so is our ability to think.
[Dr. Lisle: And when rusting metal is removed from an oxygen environment, it ceases to rust. Both the chemistry in the brain and the rusting of metal are chemical reactions that can be stopped. So? Why do you ascribe moral obligation to the former, but not the latter?]
You have yet to show that there is some “immaterial/spiritual” aspect of human thought, Lisle. Get to it instead of making false statements about your opponents motives.
[Dr. Lisle: I have already done that several posts back. How forgetful you are! Human thought has the capacity for rationality. Rationality involves considering the various options and choosing the best. However, chemistry has absolutely no choice at all. Chemicals cannot choose to react or not to react. Thus, if our thinking were chemical reactions and nothing more, then rationality would be impossible since it requires the freedom to choose. But rationality is possible. Therefore, by modus tollens our thinking cannot be limited to merely chemical reactions with nothing more. I fully understand that our thinking does involve chemistry, but if thinking is chemistry and nothing else then human rationality would be impossible.]
Lisle:
…”and that there is an objective moral code applying universally. Such things would be meaningless and unjustified apart from God”
Only because you seem to have tied in your definition of “objective” to be whatever your god commands, at any given time, no matter what.
[Dr. Lisle: No. I explicitly defined “objective” for you in a previous post, and “God” was not part of the definition, so your claim is false. However, the moral laws that God has given to humanity are the same for all people – and that fits the definition of objective. If you have an alternative way to get objective morality apart from the Christian worldview, please explain it. That’s what I’ve been asking you to do for many posts now, and you haven’t, as yet, been able to do so.]
Consistency in morality seems to play no part in being “objective” in your view…it’s just so long as there is some outside being that we can’t get away from is what counts?
[Dr. Lisle: Actually, consistency (in a temporal sense) isn’t part of the definition of “objective.” Objective means that it’s the same for all people. In the Christian worldview, morality is necessarily objective because God holds all people to exactly the same moral standard. Of course, God’s Laws are consistent as well. There are intricacies to God’s laws that you have ignored in order to make a straw-man case against God’s laws. But that’s hardly a rational response.]
Uh no. That’s just a powerful subjective force.
[Dr. Lisle: No, “subjective” means that it’s different for different people. If morality were subjective, then different laws would exist for different people. But God holds all people accountable to exactly the same moral law, and hence it is necessarily objective in the Christian worldview (Romans 2:11).]
But of course, there’s a bible verse that says that everyone knows that your god exists, so you have to twist reality to make that verse fit reality, eh?
[Dr. Lisle: No “twisting” is needed. We have solid proof that everyone knows that God exists, because everyone believes in uniformity in nature – which has no rational basis apart from God. Furthermore, the fact that people recognize that there is an objective moral code that is the same for all people shows that everyone knows God (Romans 2:14-15). After all, apart from God, how could we possibly have an objective moral code?]
Lisle:
“[vulgarity removed.]
[Dr. Lisle: As you can see on the page “Rules for posting comments,” vulgarity/profanity is not allowed and may result in permanent banning. Actually, such comments make you look bad anyway. They tend to occur when a person has no logical rebuttal and knows it.]
I’m sorry…”no logical rebuttal”? To a person who can’t tell the difference between a snowflake and a human without his god-belief?
[Dr. Lisle: That’s a question-begging epithet. It’s also very ironic since you have not as yet been able to explain why the chemical reactions in snowflakes are somehow less important morally than the chemical reactions in a brain. You’ve simply given a name to these latter chemical reactions (“thinking, emotions feelings”) as if that were somehow relevant. In my worldview, I can explain why we have no moral obligation to snowflakes but why we do have a moral obligation to people. Can you? I’ve been asking this for many, many posts. It’s time for you to give an answer.]
Uh no. It’s the utter inanity of your analogies that tosses me for a loop.
[Dr. Lisle: That’s a question-begging epithet fallacy. If you don’t understand the analogy, just ask; I’ll be happy to explain. I’ve been pretty patient with you, but it is time for you to actually give a cogent explanation for how an objective moral code can be rationally justified apart from the Christian worldview.]
I’m sorry Lisle…
[Dr. Lisle: I accept your apology. 🙂 ]
but you are lying when you say that:
“…you have not as yet been able to explain why the chemical reactions in snowflakes are somehow less important morally than the chemical reactions in a brain. You’ve simply given a name to these latter chemical reactions (“thinking, emotions feelings”) as if that were somehow relevant.
Uh, those “names” are what MAKE them relevant. Thanks for admitting that you don’t care about any of those things.
[Dr. Lisle: First, how does giving a name to a chemical reaction suddenly make that chemical reaction become morally relevant? That makes no sense. Second, rusting metal also has a name – oxidation. I coined an additional name for rusting metal to make the analogy even more effective – “fellings.” What you haven’t done yet is explain why, in your worldview, I ought to have some moral obligation to some chemical accidents (e.g. feelings) but not others (e.g. “fellings”). Your reasoning is very arbitrary. Third, I do care about human beings precisely because they are made in God’s image – unlike oxidizing metal. What I’ve asked you to explain, and what you have so far failed to do, is to explain why you – on your worldview – are morally obligated to care for some chemical accidents, but not others.]
Once again, you have admitted that without your god-belief, you would not take any of those things into consideration in your behavior.
[Dr. Lisle: Actually, no. It’s not a belief in God that can justify morality, but God. That is, apart from God, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else could give any kind of logical justification for an objective moral code for human beings. Apart from God, you cannot have a cogent explanation for why human beings deserve more protection than rusting metal. You haven’t been able to provide any. Both “feelings” and “fellings” have a name – but that doesn’t make them morally relevant. Do you understand?]
Too bad that’s what you people teach children!
[Dr. Lisle: In your worldview, children are merely chemical accidents. So why should you be concerned for them at all? Are you equally concerned for the mold that grows in your backyard?]
Lisle said:
“In my worldview, I can explain why we have no moral obligation to snowflakes but why we do have a moral obligation to people.
Unless of course, your god commands you to enslave them, or kill them, etc….but of course whatever your god commands is moral by definition, right?
[Dr. Lisle: We always have a moral obligation to God, and thus to people. Only under extreme circumstances does God allow the taking of a life – only in defense, in a just war, or for a capital crime. But in your worldview, why would any people have any moral obligation to others whatsoever? You still haven’t given a logical answer to this simple question.]
Here’s a problem with that, beyond the obvious lack of concern for the victim and society, anyway:
[Dr. Lisle: I am concerned for victims and for society. That’s why I obey God’s law to the best of my abilities and encourage others to do the same. God’s laws are for the benefit of society. When you speak against them, you show that you don’t really care about victims and society. Of course, you haven’t given any rational basis for why you should care about victims and society. In your worldview, they are chemical accidents, much like rusting metal. Why do you ascribe moral significance to some chemical reactions and not others? What is your rational basis for this distinction?]
If you use anything as THE standard of morality, then go and measure morality by that same thing, then of course it will seem “moral”. You are measuring something by itself.
How could you tell if a meter stick had 2 centimeters lopped off the ends of it if you used THAT same stick as the ultimate guide as to what a meter was?
[Dr. Lisle: That is a very good analogy, and a very good point. So let’s stick with this and think through the issues. You and I both make moral assessments, and so we will both have to appeal to a moral standard – a “meter-stick of morality.” You will naturally use your meter-stick to make measurements, just as I use mine. But which of us is using the correct standard?
How indeed could you tell if a meter stick were too short or too long? You could measure against a different meter stick, but that wouldn’t resolve the matter because maybe this other meter stick is wrong. Ultimately, the meter is a human invention; and so the standard meter is (today) defined to be roundtrip distance light travels in vacuum in 1/299792458 seconds. If someone challenged this definition, how could you tell who is right? Ultimately, the meter is conventional – we simply agree to the convention or we don’t.
Is morality conventional? If so, then we could make something right or wrong merely by voting. But then morality would be dependent on the given society, and thus not objective or universal and therefore not truly morality. So what is the standard of morality? How do we rationally decide which of our “meter-sticks of morality” is correct? I’m always going to use my standard to measure things; but then you are always going to use your standard to measure things. Is there any way to settle the debate?
Yes. A standard must be (1) justified and (2) consistent with itself. Regarding the first, it makes sense that I have a moral obligation to God. He is my Maker and He will hold me accountable for my actions. Thus, I have a very good reason to behave according to His law, even if I could get away with a crime in this world and not get caught. But on your worldview, I’m just a chemical accident; and when I’m dead, that’s it. How can a blob of chemicals be morally obligated to anything?
Regarding the second, your moral standard does not seem to be self-consistent. Actually, you’ve never stated exactly what your moral standard is. But in this post, you seem to suggest that “chemical reactions that have a name are morally obligated to other chemical reactions that have a name” – at least that’s what I make of your opening paragraph. But you don’t apply this consistently. Rusting metal does have a name, and yet you arbitrarily decide that it does not have moral value but that people do. The difference makes sense in my worldview, but not in yours. It seems like you keep stealing my “moral meter-stick” to make your measurements.]
Lisle:
“Can you? I’ve been asking this for many, many posts. It’s time for you to give an answer.]”
I gave answers. You just blindly reject them. You dismiss emotions, you dismiss the ability to think, to feel and pretend that there is no difference between rusting iron and the reactions in the human brain which provide all of those.
[Dr. Lisle: First, I haven’t “blindly rejected” anything. I’ve pointed out that in your worldview, emotions, thinking, and feelings are merely chemical reactions, as is rusting metal. I’ve asked you to explain why the former three have some sort of morality attached to them but the last doesn’t. And so far, you haven’t been able to provide any reason. You might say, “well they are different!” I know that. Rusting metal is different from the fizzing of backing soda in vinegar; but does that prove that the fizzing has moral value? How can a chemical reaction have moral value? This is what you’ll need to justify in order for your beliefs to be considered rational. (1) Explain how a chemical accident has moral obligation/value. (2) Explain and justify the standard by which you distinguish between those chemical accidents that do have moral value, and those that do not.]
There is the continuation of the species, caring for our families, friends, ourselves, etc. You will of course dismiss these and pretend that I have not answered you (again).
[Dr. Lisle: These don’t rationally answer my two questions, do they? If I were simply a chemical accident, and if my species were just a collection of chemical accidents, then why should I be morally obligated to try to preserve those chemical accidents, as opposed to others? Is a can of motor oil morally obligated to protect other cans of motor oil? Families and friend – in your worldview – are merely chemical accidents. Why, on your worldview, should you care for them, and not other chemical accidents, like rusting metal? You are being totally arbitrary.]
Yet you keep asserting that it’s only YOUR religion that can provide the justification for morality, logic, etc.
[Dr. Lisle: Actually, you have pretty well demonstrated that the Christian worldview alone can account for morality, logic, etc. In all your posts, you have yet to come up with any other standard that is self-consistent and justifies moral obligation. Asserting that emotions/feelings are important isn’t justification. What you need to do is provide a logical reason for why we have moral obligation to some chemical reactions and not others.]
Here’s why it’s wrong. For instance, if “morality” was based on your god:
slavery would still be legal. (and Lisle, you committed a lie of omission when you mentioned only ONE type of slavery–that of someone paying off their debts.)
[Dr. Lisle: In your worldview, nothing whatsoever would be right or wrong! So, you are not in a rational position to criticize others. I understand that you don’t emotionally like some of God’s laws. But how is that in any way whatsoever even remotely rationally relevant? By the way, “a lie of omission” is an oxymoron, as even moment’s reflection reveals. Think of all the true things you didn’t write in your last post. You didn’t mention your name, your age, the city you were born in, your favorite color, your SAT scores, and so forth. Should I accuse you of numerous “lies of omission?” Also, you are simply wrong in your understanding of slavery as I will show below.]
The bible approves of another type of slavery which you lacked the honesty to mention:
Leviticus 25:44-46
“Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.”
[Dr. Lisle: No. Biblical-sanctioned slavery is always because a person has accumulated more debt than he can reasonably pay in a timely fashion. The reason you are confused is because your worldview is faulty, and you have failed to consider the debt people are in to God for breaking His laws, and for usurping the land of His people.]
Other verses don’t really help:
Ephesians 6:5
1 Timothy 6:1
Titus 2:9-10
If we were going by biblical morality, slavery would still be legal and acceptable.
[Dr. Lisle: You don’t like helping people get out of debt by paying their debts and training them to become financially responsible. I get it. But your personal preferences are logically irrelevant to the issue of morality. If your worldview were true, nothing whatsoever would be right or wrong. What one chemical accident does to another is morally irrelevant.]
If I remember correctly, you also lied by omission when I pointed out that women had to marry their rapists. You quoted one verse that advocated the death penalty, but you ignored this verse:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
[Dr. Lisle: You lied by omission by neglecting to state your mother’s maiden name, the time of your birth, the color shirt you are wearing today…. Hopefully you now see how silly the concept of a “lie of omission is.” In any conversation people say far fewer things than they don’t say. The Bible teaches that there is wisdom in not always revealing what you know (Proverbs 10:19, 17:27-28). As to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 – this is referring to consensual premarital sex of two non-engaged people (e.g. Exodus 22:16). Rape requires the death penalty (Deuteronomy 22:25).
As an unbeliever, you will not be able to consistently understand God’s Word (1 Corinthians 2:14). That’s one of the reasons you keep distorting it (2 Peter 3:16).]
Let’s not forget your endorsement of the lie of omission when we discussed the case of 1 Samuel 16:1-6 when Samuel was told by god to take a heifer to sacrifice so that if asked why he was traveling, Samuel could use that as his cover story while hiding the fact that his real purpose was to anoint a new king of Isreal!
[Dr. Lisle: We’ve been through this before. What Samuel said was completely true. People are under no moral obligation to state everything they know in every conversation. There was no lie. But, in your worldview, how could one chemical accident lying to another chemical accident possibly be wrong?]
You continual lies of omission here have only done this:
You have shot down any right to claim that it’s only YOUR worldview that provides the justification for saying that lying is wrong since you (and your own “god”) don’t bother with the plain simple truth!
Instead of trying to turn it around on atheists, how’s about dealing with it? Or as the bible would say: “remove the plank from your own eye first!”
[Dr. Lisle: In your worldview, I’m just a chemical accident. How is a chemical accident morally obligated to do anything whatsoever? You still haven’t given a cogent answer to this very simply question, even though I’ve asked you to time and again. Lying is wrong in general because it is contrary to the nature of God who is truth. But in a chance universe, lying is simply one chemical reaction of many. By the way, chemical reactions have no choice. If people are merely chemistry, then they have no choice but to lie. So how can you condemn it as wrong in your worldview? Stop stealing my morality.]
Besides, if our morality was from your god, then why would we have such trouble accepting the killings and whatnot that your god commands? Doesn’t that imply that we actually get our morality from elsewhere instead?
[Dr. Lisle: That’s a very astute question. The reason you have trouble accepting God’s law, including all its qualifications, is because you are in a state of rebellion against God. That is, you (like all people) were a sinner from the moment you were conceived (Psalm 51:5). As a wicked person you naturally reject God’s law precisely because it is good. You don’t love your neighbor as yourself. If you did, you would obey God’s commandments since they are always for the benefit of His people. For example, you have complained about the qualifications God gives in His commandment to not murder. Namely, killing is justified in self-defense, for a just war, or for a capital crime. When you oppose, for example, the state executing a violent murderer, you show that you don’t really love your neighbors, because you are willing to unleash on them a person who will not be restrained. You show that you don’t care about society – and that is wicked.
In short, you don’t accept God’s law because it is good and you are wicked. If you were good, you would love God’s law, as King David did (Psalm 119:97). But you have committed high treason against your King, and criminals rarely think that they are in the wrong. They are able to convince themselves that the world owes them something. And so in their own eyes, they are perfectly justified in murdering, raping, etc. (Deuteronomy 12:8). As a wicked person, you naturally call yourself good and you call God’s law wicked (Isaiah 5:20). You do attempt to get morality from elsewhere, but you are unable to do so, because morality by its very nature is inherently rooted in the character of God.
In addition to your sin nature, you are also made in God’s image, and inherently have God’s law written on your heart (Romans 2:14-15). Thus, you do have a sense of proper morality, though you attempt to distort it because you hate the God who created you. This explains your inconsistency. On the one hand, you do – at times – make proper moral assessments. You know that human life has value because you know in your heart-of-hearts that people are made in God’s image. But you also distort that morality, and reject the God who is the source of morality, because of your sin-nature. This explains why you have not been able to come up with any rational basis for morality on your own worldview, and yet you are unable to draw the rational conclusion that God alone justifies morality.
Please don’t take my comments as a personal attack. You asked a question, and I simply answered it truthfully. Moreover, I was once in exactly the same state as you – in irrational, immoral rebellion against God and distorting His law. And except for God’s grace I would still be in that state. But God is gracious and is willing to forgive our high treason and even pay the penalty for it if we merely repent and trust in Him.]
Lisle said:
“[Dr. Lisle: Actually, you have pretty well demonstrated that the Christian worldview alone can account for morality, logic, etc.”
Uh, no. I am only coming from the secular view. There is still the worldview of *every other religion on earth* that you’d have to refute first.
Dr. Lisle: They have exactly the same problems as your worldview. Namely, they reject the biblical God, and as such cannot rationally account for objective morality, induction, laws of logic, rationality, human dignity, etc.
Lisle said:
“In all your posts, you have yet to come up with any other standard that is self-consistent and justifies moral obligation.”
Self-consistent you say? Have you forgotten the baby-killing god of yours from the OT? Yet it’s you people who pretend to be “pro-life”?
Dr. Lisle: Have you forgotten that all life belongs to God and He can take people when He wishes, and that our existence doesn’t end at death? But in your worldview, how could human life have any objective value at all? Aren’t we just chemical accidents in your view? Your objection seems very inconsistent.
And no, Lisle. You can *not* say that those babies had it coming, even if you can convince yourself that the adults did.
Dr. Lisle: In your worldview, babies are just chemical accidents of nature. So your moral objection makes no sense. It shows that in your heart-of-hearts you do know that people are made in God’s image and therefore have objective value. Otherwise, your entire argument boils down to this: “I don’t like what God does; therefore, He doesn’t exist.” But that would be intellectually preposterous. I may not like everything you do. But that doesn’t cause you to cease to exist. Your objections to the Bible could only be meaningful if the Bible is true.
Lisle said: “Asserting that emotions/feelings are important isn’t justification.”
If the pain, suffering, and death of people don’t count as a moral justification, than what would? Your god’s “word”?
Dr. Lisle: In the Christian worldview, we should have some degree of concern about the feelings of others because they are made in the image of God and therefore have objective value. But in your worldview, pain and suffering are just chemical reactions in a brain – an accident of chemistry. So why should I be morally obligated to a chemical accident? Why should death have any objective meaning to you, since it is just a change in the type of chemistry that occurs? If you shoot a person in the heart, he no longer functions as a person, but chemistry continues; if you neutralize acid with a strong base, it no longer functions as acid. Is it therefore morally wrong to neutralize acid? Should I avoid taking an antacid for my heartburn?
If that’s the case then, what are your god’s “justifications” for laying down various *ahem* “moral” rules? What criteria does your god use to justify if something is right or wrong?
Dr. Lisle: God bases morality on his own eternal, unchanging, omni-present, sovereign nature. This is why moral laws are objective – the same for all people – and do not change with time or location. And it is by God’s law that we will be judged. So we have a good, rational, objective reason to obey God’s law.
As I’ve said before: You just reject out of hand any explanation or justification for morality that doesn’t involve your god as a basis.
Dr. Lisle: Respectfully, you haven’t been paying attention if you really think that. Rather, I have pointed out that the non-biblical explanations are unable to rationally justify objective morality, and its universal, unchanging properties. In a chance universe, what happens simply happens. There is no right or wrong about it. How could it logically be any other way?
Lisle said:
” Lying is wrong in general because it is contrary to the nature of God who is truth.”
Except when he’s lies, or has others do so:
Dr. Lisle: No, God never lies because He is truth. We live in a fallen world with wicked people who do wicked things. God curtails human wickedness because He is good. Therefore, He does allow the wicked to be deceived. God can use a lying spirit to bring about the destruction of the wicked, as He did in the first two verse you list. What is supposedly wrong with that?
1 Kings 22:23
2 Chronicles 18:22
2 Thessalonians 2:11
Dr. Lisle: When the third example is read in context, we see that God allows people to be deluded who have already rejected the truth of His salvation (2 Thessalonians 2:10). It is logically necessary that those who reject the truth must be deceived by a lie. But that doesn’t mean God is lying.
I’m sure you’ll come up with some excuse that those god deceived were already predisposed to disbelieve, but that is not relevant.
Dr. Lisle: This is so ironic because you are complaining about the very freedom you are currently using to rant against God. Namely, you are upset that God allows people to lie and be deceived, and yet you are lying and trying to deceive people into believing that God doesn’t exist. Was that wrong of God to allow you such freedom? Of course, “wrong” has no meaning in an atheistic universe.
You said that “god is truth” and that lying is against his nature. An absolute statement like that leaves you no wiggle room and no excuses.
Dr. Lisle: That is a sweeping generalization fallacy. Actually, I said, “Lying is wrong in general because it is contrary to the nature of God who is truth.” God is also life; and we are made in His image. So, in general, we should not take a human life. But God does authorize exceptions. God commands the legal execution of a violent murderer because overall it preserves life – namely, the lives of any future potential victims. So God’s law is much wiser that your simplistic misrepresentation of it.
Besides, even if lying is “against god’s nature”, so what? What does that make it automatically wrong?
Dr. Lisle: Because we were created to emulate God’s character (Ephesians 5:1, Isaiah 55:7-8). We therefore should be characterized by truth. God will judge us accordingly. So I have a very good, rational, objective reason to obey God’s law.
Lisle said:
“What you need to do is provide a logical reason for why we have moral obligation to some chemical reactions and not others.]”
Asked and answered. Not every chemical reaction gives rise to sentient life. Easy. Except for you, where life only has value if you think it’s in the “image of” your god.
Dr. Lisle: Fallacy of special pleading. That answer isn’t even remotely rational for several reasons. First, sentience does not automatically equate to morality. Murderers are sentient, but they are not moral. Rapists are sentient, but they are not moral. Second, there isn’t any logical chain of reasoning by which you can get from the premise “some creatures are sentient” to “objective morality exists.” It isn’t there. Some creatures can make choices. But it doesn’t follow logically that therefore there must exist an objective law that creatures are morally obligated to follow. Indeed, in a chance universe, there can be no such moral obligation. Who would decide what it is, and how would you know?
Third, in your view, sentience is just a chemical reaction. But so is the rusting of metal. For some reason, you have arbitrarily singled out one particular class of chemical reactions and just declared “therefore morality.” But this makes about as much sense as someone saying, “Metal rusts. Therefore, there is an objective moral code.” I could equally well say, “Not every chemical reaction gives rise to rusting. But some do. Therefore, morality.” Now how does that even remotely make any sense?
Fourth, chemistry is deterministic. Chemicals have not choice, but necessarily react as they do based on the laws of physics. You react an acid with a base, you’ll get salt water every time. Chemistry has no choice. Therefore, if sentience is just chemistry, then creatures have no choice. And if there is no choice, then how could we be obligated to a moral code. After all, morality is about what people should choose to do. If people have no choice, then moral decisions are not possible. Free choice does not require morality, but morality does require free choice.
That is not value at all. it’s just a reflection of the “value” that your god has.
Dr. Lisle: If God values people (which He does) then people have value to God. That shouldn’t be hard for you to understand. God does value people. Thus people have value. And that value is objective because God is the same for all people.
The moon reflects light from the sun. Would the moon shine if the sun did not?
Dr. Lisle: You’ve made my point for me. Apart from God, people could have no objective value.
Your worldview doesn’t truly place any value on people at all.
Dr. Lisle: Just the opposite. In my worldview, the sovereign God of all truth declares that people are made in His image, and thus have inherent value. God values people to the point that He was willing to die for them. But in your worldview, people are just chemical accidents, no different in principle from a mud puddle. Tell me again which worldview doesn’t value people?
You have compared the complex biochemical reactions that give rise to the ability to think, reason, and feel pain, and have equated them with chemical reactions that do not.
Dr. Lisle: First, you have begged the question by assuming that mere chemical reactions can give rise to thinking and reasoning. Rationality requires the ability to consciously consider the various options and choose the best. But no chemical reaction has any choice; and therefore no combination of chemical reactions can have any choice. Rationality cannot be reduced to mere chemistry.
Second, for argument’s sake, let’s suppose that thinking, reasoning, and feeling are simply chemical reactions. If so, then it is the fallacy of special pleading to arbitrarily insist that these types of chemical reactions have some sort of objective moral value whereas others do not. That is completely arbitrary. Photosynthesis is a complex chemical reaction. Why do you not insist that it has as much moral value as “feelings”?
I could do the same with rust. Suppose I said, “You have compared the chemical reactions that give rise to rusting metal, and have equated them with chemical reactions that do not. Obviously, rusting metal proves morality.” Would that make any sense?
Seriously, do you need your god to be able to tell the difference between fizzing pop and the neurochemical reactions that give people the ability to think and reason?
Dr. Lisle: Chemical reactions do not give people the ability to think and reason. This should be obvious because chemical reactions have no choice in anything, but people do. In the Christian worldview, God has created humans with a non-material component and a material body. These work together. Our mind does use the chemistry in our brain, but it cannot be reduced to chemistry in the brain, or there could be no rational choices, or any choices at all.
Do you really think that because our ability to think has a physical instead of a “spiritual” basis, that means that we have no more choice than the chemical reaction of water forming?
Dr. Lisle: That should be obvious. If our ability to “think” were really just a complex chemical reaction, then our “thinking” would necessarily be irrational. Rationality requires the ability to choose the best option. But chemicals cannot choose. Therefore, no combination of chemicals has any freedom of choice whatsoever. Your professed worldview simply cannot make sense of rational thought, or objective morality.
Didn’t you take any biochemical/neuro-chemistry courses?
Dr. Lisle: I must have missed the part where they explained how deterministic chemistry can magically lead to non-deterministic genuine choice, and rational thought, and a moral code.
What does it matter where sentience came from?
Dr. Lisle: That’s not my question. My question is: how is sentience even possible in your worldview? If the universe is just a bunch of complex chemistry with no mind behind it, how can you have self-aware blobs of chemicals that are able to make free choices when no aspect of them has any free choice?
Why does one need *your* god to make it special?
Dr. Lisle: In the biblical worldview, I can make sense of sentient beings that are capable of making free choices. God after all is a sentient being capable of making free choices, and His mind upholds the entire universe. So, naturally, those finite beings He has made in His image have a limited capacity to think and make free choices. In my worldview, the universe is not limited to chemistry.
Every time you talk about *my* worldview not having any reason to value people or have any “justification for morality” because they’re just “chemical reactions”, you are *admitting* that without your god belief, YOU would see nothing wrong with lying, stealing, etc. You are just too blinded by your dogma to see it.
Dr. Lisle: Actually, apart from the biblical God, there could be nothing objectively wrong with lying, stealing, etc. These actions might emotionally bother you. But that’s subjective. The person committing these actions might enjoy them very much. So how can you say that there is some overarching objective moral principle that is being violated? Where do moral laws come from? Who decides what they are? And why am I obligated to follow them, particularly if I can get away with breaking them? Your professed worldview just cannot make any rational sense of any of these things.
In a supreme act of irony, while you keep decrying non-believers for not having a source of “morality”, and being “immoral”, YOU on the other hand, have admitted that even if your god commanded babies to be killed, that such an action would be moral!
Dr. Lisle: Ironically, your comment here demonstrates the truth of the biblical worldview. You see, in an atheistic universe, babies are just chemical accidents of nature with no objective value. So there could be nothing wrong with killing them; it would have the same moral implications as neutralizing an acid with a base – none.
Of course, you really do know that human life has objective value because you really do know in your heart-of-hearts the biblical God. And so you confirm the truth of Romans 1:18-25. This passage teaches that God has made Himself inescapably known to all people, but people suppress that truth. There is no excuse for this, yet they deny the very God who gave them life and are not thankful, but become futile and foolish in their thinking.
And to top it off, you say this:
“In short, you don’t accept God’s law because it is good and you are wicked. If you were good, you would love God’s law, as King David did (Psalm 119:97). But you have committed high treason against your King, and criminals rarely think that they are in the wrong. They are able to convince themselves that the world owes them something. And so in their own eyes, they are perfectly justified in murdering, raping, etc. (Deuteronomy 12:8). As a wicked person, you naturally call yourself good and you call God’s law wicked (Isaiah 5:20).”
Even when that “law” involves baby-killing, genocides, …
Dr. Lisle: God has only ordered the execution of those who were hopelessly wicked; murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and so forth, and societies that were characterized by such wickedness (Leviticus 18:1-30, 20:1-24). You say this is wrong, thereby showing that you are wicked because you would allow such wickedness to continue unfettered. But in your professed worldview, words like “right” and “wrong” have no objective meaning anyway. So, again, your objections to the biblical God only make sense if the Bible is true.
…forced slavery (and no, the people the ancient Isrealites enslaved did *not* “usurp” the Isrealites “god-given land”, the isrealites had never even been there yet! How could the others living there have known?)
Dr. Lisle: Wrong again. Abraham lived in the land of Canaan (Genesis 13:12) and God had promised the entire land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants long before the Exodus. Furthermore, God knew that the people who would usurp Canaan from the Israelites would act wickedly, which is the reason why He gave the land to Israel. The Bible specifically says this in Leviticus 18:3,25-28. And God has made His law known to everyone (Romans 2:14-15). The Canaanites were to be expelled for their wickedness, not for simply “not knowing any better.” I mentioned this last time, so you need to read more carefully.
It is not my “sin” that makes me upset at this moral quagmire that theists like you are in, it’s that you can’t see the glaringly obvious moral contradictions in your stance, and this is the kind of thinking that you’re trying to propagate.
Dr. Lisle: Why in your worldview would contradictions have to be wrong? The law of non-contradiction is a biblical principle. All truth is in God (Colossians 2:3), and God does not deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). Therefore, truth cannot contradict truth. This principle will be true at all times in all places with no exceptions because God is unchanging, omni-present, and sovereign over all truth. But apart from the Christian worldview, how could there be any justification for the law of non-contradiction. Can you? Again you show that you do know God.
Second, again you bring up morality, which is a biblical principle. Objective morality makes no sense in an atheistic universe. Your objections to Scripture could only be meaningful if the Bible is true.
If a member of any other religion fed you the lines of “reasoning” that you gave me, how would you react?
Dr. Lisle: No other religion can or would give cogent reasons for objective morality because morality is based upon the Christian God, which other religions reject.
Lisle said:
“But God is gracious…”
You wouldn’t be able to make a case for that from his own book…
Dr. Lisle: Exodus 22:27, 33:19, 34:6, 2 Kings 13:23, 2 Chronicles 30:9, Nehemiah 9:17,31, Psalm 86:15, 103:8, 111:4, 116:5, 145:8, Joel 2:13, Jonah 4:2, Ephesians 2:8, 2:4, Psalm 84:11, John 1:14, Acts 11:23, Romans 3:24, 5:15, 1 Corinthians 15:10, 2 Corinthians 2:12, 4:15, 6:1, 8:1,9, 9:14, to name a few. God continues to maintain your existence, giving you life and breath, even as you rant against Him. I would say that is pretty gracious.
Lisle said:
“… and is willing to forgive our high treason and even pay the penalty for it if we merely repent and trust in Him.]”
Problem 1: God did *not* pay the penalty for it. Not unless Jesus is still in hell fire for eternity like we are supposed to be when we “pay” for our own “sins”.
Dr. Lisle: Christ’s life is more valuable than yours, and infinitely so because He is the infinite God, whereas you are a finite creature. Thus, Christ’s death is sufficient to pay for all sin – He died once for all (1 Peter 3:18, Romans 6:10, Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 10:10, Isaiah 53:6). Christ did pay the penalty for sin on the cross and said so. This is the meaning of “It is finished” (John 19:30) which can also be translated “paid in full.”
Think about it: A god who has supposedly lived forever spends 3 days (not really, but close enough!) dead, versus mortal people who live a short time, but burn *forever* in hell. And that *one-time* “sacrifice” is supposed to cover not just one person, but all of them?
Dr. Lisle: We have committed high treason against an infinitely holy God. And so it would take all eternity for us as finite beings to pay an infinite penalty. But Christ is God, and therefore His life is of infinite value. Since His death is worth infinity it immediately pays any penalty to which it is applied. Think about it: a poor man who can pay only $1 per day would take 1000 days to pay a $1000 dollar fine. But a rich man can pay that fine instantly.
In what universe does that math for that balance out?
Dr. Lisle: In this one. An infinite payment can pay any debt immediately.
Problem 2: You need to come up with better evidence for your god’s existence than by asserting that I already know that he, she, or it exists. That is begging the question.
Dr. Lisle: Respectfully, you just haven’t been paying attention. You have demonstrated that you do know God because you are aware of moral principles, logic, mathematics, and so on – all things that make no sense apart from the biblical God. I don’t need to assert anything. You have demonstrated that God exists and that you do know Him.
Of course: Your “holy book” says so. And in your worldview, you dare not admit that it might be wrong, otherwise, your entire reason for living goes down in flames.
Dr. Lisle: Actually, you haven’t provided any logical reasons why I should reconsider my worldview. About all you’ve said is that you don’t like God. What He does makes you emotionally uncomfortable. But how is that in any way rationally relevant to the truth of the biblical worldview?
So people like you are able to judge someone as “knowing that god exists, but just loving sin too much to admit it”, even *without* having a long internet debate with them!
Dr. Lisle: Actually, God is the one who says that everyone knows Him, but they love their sin too much to admit it (Romans 1:18-20, John 3:19-20). If you disagree, take it up with Him. In any case, your comments here have certainly confirmed this truth.
PS: A lie of omission is when a person leaves out relevant details of a situation. Not what a person had for breakfast, or repeating word-for-word every single letter the person said in an argument…
Can you show me where the Bible says that we are morally obligated to always tell people all relevant details, rather than remaining silent?
Dr. Lisle,
How come not all Christians believe in the same origins beliefs as you do? I think Francis Collin believes in evolutionary theology (if I am not mistaken, and he is a Christian, is he not?) I also listened to your debate with Dr. Hugh Ross (where I think you made more sense than he did). Do you and other Christian scientists not discuss your positions and honestly try to come up with a more rational (or shall I say “Spirit-filled” ) view of Origins? Has this fact that the Christian scientific community is in disagreement over this basic belief been used by atheist scientists like Dawkins to say that the Christian position on origins then is very weak? Thank you for your time.
Lynn,
It’s a matter of authority. Not all Christians submit to the Bible’s teaching on origins. Simply put, the Bible very clearly teaches that God created everything in six days: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” -Exodus 20:11
So it’s a simple matter of believing what the Bible teaches. Unfortunately, people like Francis Collins and Hugh Ross choose not to believe the Bible’s account of origins. Ironically enough, many atheists are more consistent than Christians like Collins and Ross, in that they usually realize that long ages/evolution are not compatible with the Bible’s account of history. It seems to be Christian compromisers that have trouble grasping this.
Is the Origins teaching not similar to that of the Endtimes in which there may be more than one interpretation of Scripture regarding these?
[Dr. Lisle: Yes. In both cases, there are many interpretations. But in the case of both Genesis and end-times, there is only one correct interpretation.]
Or do you agree with my question?
[Dr. Lisle: It’s a fair question. But there is a big difference between prophetic literature (which makes wide use of symbolism and poetic word pictures and requires knowledge of the rest of the Bible to interpret properly), and historical narrative (which is the straight-forward recording of past events in a primarily literal fashion, requiring almost no knowledge of the rest of the Bible to interpret properly.) Some parts of the Bible are harder to understand than others (2 Peter 3:16). Prophecy is generally harder to interpret than history.]
If we say that Christians who hold an evolutionary view of origins are in disobedience with regard to the Word on that teaching, are we not in effect saying that they are not Spirit-filled ( for they are espousing a “wrong” teaching)…
[Dr. Lisle: Not necessarily. All Christians are spirit-filled in the sense that our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. However, Christians still sin at times. We don’t lose our salvation when we sin. But that doesn’t mean we should continue in sin either (Romans 6:15). To distort God’s Word in Genesis is indeed sinful. But that doesn’t mean the person committing this sin is necessarily unsaved. We are saved by grace after all, not by obedience (though obedience should generally follow from our salvation).]
…and are we not then in danger of hastily “judging” them?
[Dr. Lisle: If you assume someone is unsaved merely on the basis that they profess evolution or millions of years, then yes – that would be a hasty and presumptuous judgment. On the other hand, if a person knows what Genesis says, but has so little respect for the Bible that he teaches evolution anyway, then that is certainly a warning sign that the person may not have a saving faith (James 2:14). By their fruits we will know them (Matthew 7:16). Contrary to what many people assume, we are supposed to judge, but we are to do so by God’s standard and not man’s (John 7:24).]
Are there not Christians out there who really love the Lord but who believe in evolutionary theology?
[Dr. Lisle: Yes. But they are living inconsistently. To distort God’s Word in such a way is sinful. But Christians are inconsistent at times, loving the Lord on one hand while simultaneously disrespecting His Word on the other.]
I guess my real question is: why the confusion? Is it simply because of stubborn hearts? What is your view on that? Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.
[Dr. Lisle: In the case of Genesis, where the text is clear historical narrative, there really shouldn’t be any confusion. Genesis is not a book of difficult prophetic symbolism where a deep knowledge of Scripture is required to understand. For people who haven’t bothered to study Genesis, the solution is often education. We lead them through the text, and show them that it really means what it says, and they accept it. On the other hand, when people have studied Genesis, and come away believing in evolution and deep time, I have to believe that yes, this is because of stubborn hearts. The religious leaders during Jesus’ earthly ministry did just that sort of thing; they distorted the text of Scripture to suit their traditions. Jesus confronts this type of sin in Matthew 15:1-9. I hope this helps.]
Hi, Brother Jason- I greatly appreciated your presentation at MIOS the other night. Went home thinking about the asynchronous clock problem for experimenting to prove or disprove anisotropic light convention. I believe I have a solution. If you would please email me at my personal email address, I would like to share illustrations and as quick an explanation as I can for your evaluation. Maybe we can build this or a similar apparatus! Two salient Einstien-attributed quotes:
“The significant problems we have cannot be solved with the same level of thinking we were using when we created them.” and “(The definition of insanity is:) doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Thanks again!
Tye
If Einstein is right, then it is not possible to construct any apparatus that can measure the one-way speed of light without first tacitly assuming it. You may want to read some of the other posts I’ve answered on this site where people have proposed various mechanisms. There is always a catch. But if these don’t answer your question, you can post here. I, or others perhaps, will try to answer it – time permitting.
Months late, but, au contraire, Einstein assumed clocks would have to be synchronized to discern divergence in synchronicity. Why not settle for non-synchronous clocks that make records (at quartz-speed resolution). Set up towers precisely 1/1000 of the distance light travels in 1 sec. “Assumed” distance is only to make the apparatus physically possible, so that the sides of a right triangle can be worked with in a physical distance - miles, built high enough to overcome earth curvature- in order to have a precision-split laser strike them from the apex of the right angle. (An array of radio-shack laser sensors could make this physically possible). 2 clocks of matched at 200MHz receive a pulse from the sensors on each tower and make a digital record of the event (of course, if the clocks’ locations had different temp or humidity, calculate for parabolic coefficient. ) The same pulse from the beam-sensors triggers a relay which activates a second, electrically isolated system whereby two more lasers now fire each at the other tower (across the hypotenuse). The secondary lasers mark the digital record, each timed-stamped by its discrete clock, on its own tower. When each beam reaches the opposite tower, sensor arrays record each event on each opposite tower’s digital record, and mirrors bounce the beam back to each beam’s source-tower, where the digital record of each is again imprinted on it’s home record. This mechanism or a facsimile of it makes clock synchronicity irrelevant to the equations, while recording actual events, each in a high resolution timeline so that comparisons may be deduced. Einstein’s dilemma may be a “red herring”?
The problem with this thought experiment (and all thought experiments of this kind) is that ESC and ASC make identical predictions about what the result will be. So the experiment cannot distinguish between the two conventions, and thus cannot measure the one-way speed of light. See Wesley Salmon’s article on the topic, referenced in my ARJ paper.
[By the way, “a lie of omission” is an oxymoron, as even moment’s reflection reveals. Think of all the true things you didn’t write in your last post. You didn’t mention your name, your age, the city you were born in, your favorite color, your SAT scores, and so forth. Should I accuse you of numerous “lies of omission?” Also, you are simply wrong in your understanding of slavery as I will show below.]”
Dr. Lisle, I have been studying apologetics literature for years. I have read books by Gleason Archer, Norman Geisler, and a few books written by people like Ken Ham and Bodie Hodge. I remember reading Archer’s explanation for Samuel being coached by God to deceive Saul. This was clearly a lie of omission. Samuel misled Saul because he was instructed by God to do so! I remember reading Archer’s explanation of this and it was very far-fetched. Now you’re claiming that there is no such thing as a lie of omission?
[Dr. Lisle: A lie is “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive.” If there is no false statement, there can be no lie by definition.]
Come on Jason! You were smart enough to earn a doctorate in astrophysics! Use that noggin of yours to think this through!
If, say, the President of the United States went to a Democratic Fundraiser because he was having an affair with one of the organizers and only told his wife “I’m going there to give a dinner speech”. Suppose he gives a dinner speech but later goes up to a hotel room where he meets the female organizer and one of his campaign staffers walks in on him in, in bed with this woman, did he not mislead his wife by telling her that he was going to give a dinner speech when his chief reason for going was to commit adultery?
That you would describe a “lie of omission” as an oxymoron is both silly and ignorant! People mislead other people all the time by omitting critical information for the purpose of misleading others. That someone would not admit details to you like that person’s name, age, the city of birth favorite color, SAT scores, and all the other information isn’t a “lie-of-omission” because those details are not relevant and they’re not omitted for the purpose of misleading you.
[Dr. Lisle: There is a difference between a lie and simply being deceptive. All lies are deceptive, but not all forms of deception are lies. The fallacy you’ve committed is that of affirming the consequent.]
For your information, I am 36, born in California, I never took the SAT (fear of failure), have a B.A. degree, not married, and I guess I should mention that I had a cup of decaf coffee this morning from Starbucks along with an artisan ham-sandwich. I had to ask Michelle to make it extra toasty and I put two packs of Splenda in my coffee. I had a subway sandwich from TOGOS and a bottle of “Propel” from a supermarket store. My car almost didn’t start today and I don’t know what the temperature or humidity is outside as I type this but I don’t have the fan in the room of the window. My shirt is a dark read, I am wearing khakis, I have black socks on, and black leather shoes. Is that all the information about me that you need or did I forget to mention a detail, making me guilty of a lie by omission?
[Dr. Lisle: If it is a “lie of omission” to not state what you know to be true, then you have committed millions of lies of omission in your message to me. After all, you failed to state your favorite color, your social security number, your banking records, your ATM password, and countless others. Do you see the absurdity of the position you are advocating?]
Matthew
Jason, nice try but no cigar, sir! Let me quote your statements with my comments included:
“Dr. Lisle: A lie is “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive.” If there is no false statement, there can be no lie by definition.]”
I didn’t say “lie” but “lie-of-omission”. When the word “lie” is unqualified, it can be defined precisely as you state. A blatant, bald-faced lie is definitely a “false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive”. A lie-of-omission, on the other hand, doesn’t have to be a false statement by definition; it can be any statement or a set of statements were facts are omitted for the purpose of misleading someone or failing to correct a misconception that someone may have.
[Dr. Lisle: Perhaps you don’t realize this, but you are now engaging in a verbal dispute, rather than a genuine argument. A verbal dispute is a disagreement over terminology rather than facts. In shifting the debate to a verbal dispute, you have lost your original point. Namely, you had criticized me for my response to another poster who had claimed that God was dishonest “for example the lie that Samuel told Saul about what he was doing.” I had pointed out that this was not a lie because no false statement was made. By definition, it cannot be a lie.]
[In an attempt to refute my response, this person responded that it was indeed a lie, because it was a lie of omission. Specifically, this person wrote that God “can’t be truthful since he does order people (ex. the prophet Samuel) to lie (a lie of omission…).” Now, the only way this person’s argument could be cogent is if a “lie of omission” is a type of lie. Otherwise, proving that someone committed a lie of omission would not establish that the person lied, which is what the commenter was attempted to prove. But a “lie of omission” is not a lie (by definition), and thus the term is itself an oxymoron. You then criticized me for this, but I don’t think that you have found any genuine errors in reasoning on my part.]
“[Dr. Lisle: There is a difference between a lie and simply being deceptive. All lies are deceptive, but not all forms of deception are lies. The fallacy you’ve committed is that of affirming the consequent.]”
Your response misrepresents my response. I didn’t say “lie” but “lie-of-omission”. You conveniently leave out the qualifying phrase “of-omission”.
[Dr. Lisle: If a “lie of omission” is a qualified type of of lie, then my point stands. If a person commits a type of lie, then the person has lied. On the other hand, if a “lie of omission” is not a lie at all (and thus an oxymoron), then why did you criticize me for pointing this out?]
I never said that all forms of deception are lies. So how I am guilty of the fallacy of affirming the consequent is beyond me.
[Dr. Lisle: In order for your comments to make any sense, that would have to be your conclusion. After all, I had pointed out that Samuel did not lie to Saul, and that it is not a lie to omit information. If you are criticizing me for that, then presumably you must think that indeed deception can always be classified as a lie, albeit a “lie of omission” in some cases. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.]
This doesn’t excuse the fact that in the Bible God is guilty of lying by omission. God coaches Samuel to mislead Saul. Even if you are right, then by your own admission, God is guilty of being deceptive. Even if God didn’t tell an outright lie, he did coach Samuel into misleading Saul. In either case, whether it’s properly termed a “lie-of-omission” or being “deceptive”, the fact remains that God is being dishonest.
[Dr. Lisle: It seems that you now agree with me that Samuel did not lie; so that’s progress. But one of many problems here is that apart from the Christian worldview you have no basis for believing that anyone has a moral obligation to be honest (or to be anything for that matter). And thus it makes no sense for you to criticize God or anyone else for allegedly failing to be honest. In the Christian worldview, we are morally obligated to obey our Creator. And God is truth and has commanded us to emulate His character – hence we ought to be truthful. In the Christian worldview we can discuss whether God has specified any qualifications or exceptions where it would be morally right to deceive. But such conversations would be meaningless apart from the Christian worldview because morality is meaningless apart from the Christian worldview.]
“Dr. Lisle: If it is a “lie of omission” to not state what you know to be true, then you have committed millions of lies of omission in your message to me. After all, you failed to state your favorite color, your social security number, your banking records, your ATM password, and countless others. Do you see the absurdity of the position you are advocating?]”
The only absurdity is your response Jason. I failed to state my favorite color, SSN, banking records, ATM password, etc,.. because 1.) these bits of information are not irrelevant and 2.) there’s no intent to mislead you by omitting any of these facts. If I fail to share my SSN, how are you being misled or deceived? The reason I shared the information that I did with you was simple sarcasm. I do apologize, however, for a slight typographical error on my part. I described my shirt color as “read” instead of “red”. I seriously apologize to your readers for this spelling error. However, I think that the points that I made in my response still stand. So, are you going to admit, then, that God is guilty of deception or are you going to be like Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and other presuppostional apologists, and invent some laughably pathetic excuse as to why the Bible doesn’t contain any flaws?
[Dr. Lisle: That’s a spectacular example of the fallacy of the complex question. You’ve presented me with two options: either absurdity #1, or absurdity #2. I choose #3 – rationality. God cannot be “guilty” of any immorality because morality stems from His nature. If you had a Christian worldview, then we could move on and discuss whether God’s precept (that we should be honest people) has any qualifications or exceptions. I.e., is it ever in God’s will, and thus morally right, for one person to deceive another? But apart from the Christian worldview, we would not be able to argue that anything whatsoever is morally right or morally wrong.]
[…] you find yourself worshiping at the altar of one of these false gods? Jason Lisle writes a good article encouraging Christians not to be lead astray by the false god of Deep […]
Hey Dr. Lisle, an atheist responded this to me after i told him about the evidence for a young earth with comets.
Me:
There is evidence that confirms creation, for example like comets, they don’t last that long. Comets that orbit the sun have a maximum life time of about 100,000 years. This is a strong confirmation of Biblical creation. This is just one of the various evidences that confirm Creation, however i would like to see your response to this.
Sources:
– Steidl, P. F., Planets, comets, and asteroids, Design and Origins in Astronomy, pp. 73-106, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983), order from creationresearch.org.
– http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-young-world/
Skeptic:
Except that the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud continue to provide new comets as time passes. I also notice that the author, D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. has a degree in physics, not cosmology.
Here is the best evidence against a young earth. You don’t accept radiometric dating (right?) and a common creationist claim is that the decay rates could have been different. Okay, lets go with that. If the radioactive decay rates were fast enough to make a 6,000 year old earth appear 4.5 billion, then the amount of radiation needed to be released by all the different elements would be enough to kill all life on Earth in 5 minutes and that radiation level would be constant.
—————————————————————————————
I think that last part is circular reasoning, since he assumed that radiometric dating makes the earth look young, in order to prove that it is young. Am i correct at that?
“Is there any evidence that a Kuiper belt or Oort cloud supplies new comets, or do atheists simply take that on blind faith? Is there any observational evidence that an Oort cloud even exists, or is it blind faith?” Those would be good follow-up questions. If he’s honest, he’ll have to admit that there is no scientific evidence for his speculation.
As to the radiation produced by accelerated radioactive decay, such decay occurs mainly in the heavier elements, (e.g. uranium), and not in the light elements that comprise living organisms. Moreover, Noah and the animals on the ark would be very well insulated from the radiation by over a mile of water! So there is no rational basis for the claim that accelerated decay would “kill all life on Earth in 5 minutes.” Those calculations have been done, and so your friend may want to look them up in the RATE books.
Also we are on a debate on google plus, and another person claimed something about the ICR, which i can’t really refute.
Is there any chance that you have time for that?
Another skeptic responded:
“I had a look at your ICR link–You need to get better sources. I’ll just quickly deal with the first three to demonstrate why.
#1 It is considered that the arms are caused by density waves.
#2 Where in the bible is the million year time limit for supernovae remnants remaining visible given? Oh, that’s right, its not in the bible, they needed science to derive that figure. To use science to discredit another bit of that exact same science, shows that they have absolutely zero respect for the intelligence of their audience. But I dare say they are aware that their own followers are sheep, not scientists. There are other reasons why we may not see as many remnants as are there.
#3 suggests evolutionary theory has something to say about comets. I know why they don’t provide a link or citation to that claim, but do you?
And here is a link to the departure lounge for a voyage of discovery.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html”
—————————————————————-
I realize that all these are rescuing devices
However they make a claim in #2 that i don’t know how to refute, in fact i really don’t understand his comment on that.
As well as #3.
Dr. Lisle,
I was explaining to someone that Genesis was written in historical narrative and replied with:
“And the way we record history is very different than how they recorded history. Genesis was before the advent of rationalistic standards.”
Have you ever heard that argument before? My response was “so if God wanted to tell us that He created in six days how would He do it?” Good point but it didn’t really address his point directly. How would you respond?
Dr. Lisle,
I was explaining to someone that Genesis was written in historical narrative and replied with:
“And the way we record history is very different than how they recorded history. Genesis was before the advent of rationalistic standards.”
Have you ever heard that argument before?
They are making an arbitrary assertion, and have tacitly presupposed that the Bible is false – thereby begging the question. According to the Bible, humans are made in God’s image and have had the capacity for rational thought from the beginning. Only in an evolutionary worldview would it make sense to think that people became rational at some point, and that Genesis was written before people recorded history in a truthful and rational fashion. Besides, many of the events of Genesis have been confirmed archeologically, such as the city of the plains, and existence of Abraham.
Jason, I believe the comment you’re replying to is referring to how historical records were actually done rather than any advent of rational thought.
Prior to around the mid 20th century, history was treated more as an art form than a scientific endeavour. Esp during the time the biblical accounts were written, historical methods were not generally geared towards absolute accuracy. Even good historians, who followed methodically, investigated sources, and so on, would embellish, or pick and choose which stories to report about a person or event, or invent speeches a person might have said, or the historian wished they’d said.
It was even worse for historians who were not “good”, such as the authors of the gospels (assuming they meant them to be historical) or the Genesis accounts, since the texts are essentially anonymous and fail to describe sources or methods.
I understand. But there isn’t any evidence that biblical authors embellished facts or invented speeches – in fact there is evidence to the contrary since the Bible forbids false witness. A text need not describe the methods or even mention its author in order for it to be accurate history. It simply needs to reliably report what happened, which of course the Bible does.
There’s actually no evidence they didn’t make things up wholesale, since we don’t have any record of their sources, methods, or even who they were in the vast majority of cases.
[Dr. Lisle: Wrong. Many of the events recorded in Scripture have been confirmed archeologically – Jericho, Ai, the cities of the plains. Your belief that the biblical authors “made things up wholesale” simply cannot stand up to rational scrutiny. Even secular scholars know better than that.]
We know that even the best of ancient historians were prone to these errors. We know, due to the lack of markers of a competent historian, that the authors of the gospels (among the biblical authors) were not among the best of ancient historians.
[Dr. Lisle: Wrong again. There is just no evidence of your claim. None. And there is so much evidence against it: archeological confirmation, confirmation from extra-biblical literature such as Josephus, etc.]
Wow – a book which claims it is true should be accepted on face value because of that!
The koran claims similar things, so I guess we should accept it as well, right? 🙂
[Dr. Lisle: Well, the Koran endorses the Gospels while simultaneously contradicting them. But it makes no sense for a book that repeatedly condemns lying to be written in a style where the authors intentionally lied. So your claim that the biblical authors intentionally embellished or made up events just isn’t rational. And it is arbitrary – lacking any sort of internal or external basis.]
Of course not, but it most certaintly helps when it comes to us accepting what it claims.
[Dr. Lisle: Whether you “accept” the claims of Scripture is completely irrelevant to their truth. They will continue to be true, make knowledge possible, and have archeological confirmation, even if you choose to close your eyes, plug your ears, and repeat to yourself “it just isn’t true. It just isn’t true.”
Without external corroboration, you can’t claim that (well, without external corroboration OR you presuming without justification that the bible is competely true).
[Dr. Lisle: The Bible has abundant external corroboration. You just haven’t bothered to visit a library. But it’s not God’s fault that you would rather remain ignorant of these things than become educated. More importantly, you inconsistently rely upon facts that can only be rationally justified if the Bible is true – such as the basic reliability of your senses and memory, laws of nature, laws of logic, etc. etc. This is why the Bible says about people that reject Him that they have “no excuse” (Romans 1:20).]
This is a Christian I was talking to. He is an EOC. He seems to think that the Jews recorded history differently than we do now. His argument is that Genesis is not about HOW God created but THAT He created.
That’s an example of “the point is” fallacy. I have some example of this in an upcoming book. The bottom line is that it is hermeneutically irresponsible to simply disregard details of the passage that you personally don’t feel are important. If the details of how God created were unimportant, then why did God include them in the text? If Genesis chapter 1 really simply intended to convey the fact that “God created” then why doesn’t it simply say “God created.”? Is the rest just filler so God could get the word count up? 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches that ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, not just what some people consider to be the main point of a passage.
Dear Dr. Lisle: I know it’s been a couple of years since you posted this article, but I only now discovered your blog. It’s an excellent article. My only comment concerns your mention of the infiltration of deep time and other false gods into, as you say, “the church”. My response is this. Who says its “the church”? If the people in it are believing things that oppose the Word of God, then it sounds more like a collection of unbelievers. I know you know this already, and so my question is rhetorical. But some think that the church is being invaded and is liable to be destroyed. I think God is separating believers from unbelievers, and the real church (the invisible one He puts us in when we are saved) is still pure.
Dr. Lisle,
I have a question regarding the anisotropic synchrony convention which you present as a possible solution to the distant starlight problem. Can I pose the question here?
Yes.
Jason’s difficulty is that none of what he is saying is true. It’s contradicted by readily checked evidence.
Dr. Lisle: Evidence, such as…?
There was no creation in six days, no Adam, no Eve, no fall, no global flood.
Dr. Lisle: And you know this how? Were you there? Since these events are part of recorded history, it would take some pretty spectacular evidence to refute them. So where is it?
At stake here are not different assumptions or world views.
Dr. Lisle: So you have the same assumptions and worldview that I have?
It is Jason’s assumptions that are demonstrably not true.
Dr. Lisle: You previously stated that it’s not about different assumptions; but now you want to argue that my assumptions are false? Make up your mind please. You are welcome to attempt to disprove my presuppositions/worldview, but you will need some kind of rational argument. Just repeating the claim accomplishes nothing.
The great antiquity of the Earth is required by the huge array of events preserved in crustal geology, a history that even an undergraduate can appreciate if he or she takes the trouble to look.
Dr. Lisle: Can you provide a single example? My colleague Dr. Tim Clarey has been studying geological megasequences for years, and all the evidence he’s finding confirms a global flood – not deep time. If the rocks were billions of years old, then why do we find measurable amounts of c-14 in the remains of many things within them, such as coal, dinosaur tissue, and diamonds? (C-14 has a half-life of 5730 years). It seems to me that the youth of the earth and the global flood are quite obvious from geology to even an undergraduate who takes the time to look at the evidence and actually think about it.
When Jason claims, as he often does, that we are all looking at the same facts, he distorts reality.
Dr. Lisle: So you are looking at different facts than I am? I am looking at fossils, and rock layers, canyons, and so – the geology of Earth. If you are not looking at the same facts, then what exactly are you looking at?
Creationism depends upon ignoring most of what is known and misrepresenting the rest.
Dr. Lisle: Actually, I embrace everything that is actually known. What I reject are bald assertions that are not backed up with evidence – such as yours. With respect, it seems to me that you are the one ignoring the evidence, such as c-14 in diamonds, global scale catastrophic geological deposition, etc.
He will disagree. So I challenge him to put his faith on the line, to test his beliefs, to join me in the field to examine that which he denies.
Dr. Lisle: Ironic. I was just thinking that about you. I challenge you to actually demonstrate particles-to-people evolution or deep-time scientifically. Don’t just make sweeping rhetorical assertions, but provide an actual experiment with an appropriate control group that will actually demonstrate either particles-to-people evolution or the alleged antiquity of the earth. So far, no evolutionist has been able to do either of these. But I challenge you to be the first to “put his money where his mouth is.” We creationists do test our models by data, and so far the data confirm recent creation, for example:
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mitochondrial-dna/origin-human-mitochondrial-dna-differences-new-generation-time-data-both-suggest-unified-young-earth/
and
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/on-the-origin-of-eukaryotic-species-genotypic-and-phenotypic-diversity/
He will ignore the challenge, and likely delete this post,…
Dr. Lisle: Yes, everyone can see that I have deleted this post. 😉
…because like all creationists he is threatened by the possibility that he might be wrong.
Dr. Lisle: Again, you seem to be projecting. After all, you haven’t presented any evidence whatsoever to back up your assertions. It’s all just very emotional rhetoric. Are you really so threatened by the possibility that you might be wrong?
Jason may have earned a PhD in astrophysics. He appears not to have internalized the essence of science – an approach to inquiry that depends on testing explanations against data, not fitting data to predetermined conclusions.
Dr. Lisle: My irony-meter just exploded. Don’t you see, Nicholas, that you are the one that has failed to test any of his explanations against data. You didn’t present any evidence whatsoever in your message. None. You simply made assertions. Is that how you think science is done? You have a story that you strongly believe, and it appears that you are merely fitting data to your predetermined conclusions. For example, has it even occurred to you that the reason there is all this evidence of a young earth (e.g. c-14 in everything with carbon, genetic clocks, etc.) is because the Earth really is young? Or do you simply dismiss such data or attempt to fit them into your predetermined conclusions?