The Meaning of Life #1: Causality

I have decided to write a series on a particular topic that is argued to the very core. Atheism and Theism. We will leave Pantheism out for this series considering their religion is very much uncommon, especially when it comes to debates on “The Meaning of Life”.  We have reached a day and age in time where debates are getting more and more common, especially when it comes to “Religion or the Meaning of Life”.  Biologists, Apologists, physicists, and Theologians are now starting to come to grips of the universe, and now want to debate everyone else on the matter. Great Apologists like Ravi Zacharias and Frank Turek are now debating well known Atheists, David Silverman and Christopher Hitchens enter this category. Now we all know that with debates: No side of the table are willingly going to give up there views. So it’s just to see if the crowd can be persuaded in the debate. That we’ll never know. But what I have come to talk about today is what both sides talk about on certain subjects, being Theist or Atheist. I am a Theist and have been for 10 years, but I have decided to look into both views and see if Atheist really do self-defeat their claims(Theistic view) or Theism can’t refute the evidence of Atheism(Atheistic view). Let’s begin.

Causality: “No one created something out of nothing?”

I thought we would start with a very common subject: Causality(Which is Cosmos for some that don’t know). This is a very “Scraping the surface for both sides, or is it?

Frank Turek is a very smart Christian Apologist who by his videos has a very small temper(David Silverman debate to explain that). This was his quote with Causality:

“To doubt the law of causality is to doubt virtually everything we know about reality, including our ability to reason and do science. All arguments, all thinking, all science, and all aspects of life depend on the law of causality” -Frank Turek, Stealing from God

So we have discovered that by Frank’s theory, with Causality, to doubt causality is to totally doubt everything in the real world, Reality. Let’s listen to what Lawrence Krauss who is a Physicist says:

“One of the things about Quantum mechanics is not only can nothing become something, nothing always becomes something. Nothing is unstable. Nothing will always produce something in Quantum mechanics.”-Lawrence Krauss.

So by those two quotes we have gathered two things, Frank claims that without Causality(Cause and Effect) nothing can appear. which is where Theist’ statements come from, “Something created something out of nothing” When Krauss’ view is that by the very science that Frank says falters with out cause and effect, “Nothing can make something out of nothing” Because by his research and Quantum Mechanics, nothing is unstable enough for a reaction to occur.

But it turns out when Frank himself when hearing Krauss’ claim asked him. “What do you mean by “Nothing?” Well apparently Frank found out that it wasn’t nothing. Now I’m not going to rule out Atheism just yet just because of one false claim, let’s hear what Krauss meant when he said nothing.

“A Quantum Vacuum is something- it consists of fields of fluctuating energy from which particles appear to pop in and out of existence. Whether these particles are caused or uncaused is unknown. It could be that they are caused but simply can’t discover or predict how that happens .”

Now Frank went on to say that with Krauss’ statement, there could at least be ten different plausible models of the Quantum level. But wait a second, I’m still going to give the Atheistic view a chance, remember, that’s what Atheist’s go on. Chance. So let’s give them another one shall we.

Does Causality apply outside of Space and Time?

Now when exploring more of Krauss’ theories which are rather interesting. He comes to a point where he talks about the physical cause. By God, he is spaceless, timeless and immaterial. Krauss explains the material Causality which is where only the physical cause can create the physical effect. Now if we use Frank’ theory with this claim he comes up with a syllogism:

1. The Law of Causality only applies to physical things in space-time.

2. The creation of the universe did not occur in space-time. (It was the creation of space-time.)

3. Therefore the law of Causality does not apply to the creation of the universe.

Now by Frank’ calculations, if you look closely at the Syllogism, you figure out that the first claim is already false. For instance, when we look into the actual meaning of Causality it says “the relationship between cause and effect.” Now that could account for anything. If I say a racist thing to someone who is black. The possible effect of that would be the emotion of getting offended. Now that’s obviously not physical. So his first claim goes down in the dumps, these are now two reasons why I shouldn’t have be an Atheist, but I’m sure that Atheism can come back swinging, so let’s continue.

Conclusion.

Now you know how you have three strikes you’re out method in baseball, well I have the same Philosophy in my Reasoning for Atheism and Theism. Now I don’t have favorites here even though I’m theist. Even an Atheist said the same thing about his belief. “If you can refute my claim and give a more reasonable explanation than I would be a Theist.”-David Silverman.

Now I had two strikes at the end, but I shall give the third in this conclusion.

Dr. Paul Davies, who is an agnostic on the question of God. He wrote an entry on Science.

Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from ‘That’s not a scientific question’ to ‘Nobody knows.’ The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are- they just are.”-Dr. Paul Davies

And…..You’re out! You see, when you look closely you realize that the scientists have to base their own evidence on faith even more than us, because unlike them, we have hard evidence on our theism, the best answer Atheists can give is “They just are.”

You can’t base your faith on Paper-thin evidence. A Atheist couldn’t use that at a debate, but they do anyway. Don’t be fooled by Atheists, they may be smart, but they’re not reasonable at all. Don’t be blinded by their hollow reasoning and instead research your claims. David Silverman said to Frank Turek during a debate a few years ago. “Theists use the whole God of the gaps theory.” Don’t be blinded by that. We have good reason for our God, and trust me. When you give great reasoning, Atheism will be left in the dust.

See you in part 2 for the real subject: Reason.

Blessings.

 

 

Advertisements

Atheists and Wile E. Coyote

Good evening everyone,

My last post was very much on the fact of absolute truth, and how we only want it for certain things in life.

Last time our fellow apologists Norman and Frank decided to join us for that featured post. And I thought we could bring them back to a post that I think will turn some heads.

The Road Runner Tactic

“If someone said to you, “I have one insight for you that absolutely revolutionize your ability to quickly and clearly identify the false statements and false philosophies that permeate our culture,” would you be interested? That’s what we’re about to do here. In fact, if we had to pick just one thinking ability as the most valuable we’ve learned in our many years of seminary and postgraduate  education, it would be this: how to identify and refute self-defeating statements. An incident from a recent talk-radio program will demonstrate what we mean by self-defeating statements.”

So on the last post I wrote, I was saying how Atheists can’t handle hearing the truth because it doesn’t enlighten them, well this post is based on the fact of how Atheists say that we can’t get our facts straight, but when looking deeper into the argument you realize it is the Atheist who can’t get their facts straight. Let’s continue into this story from Norm and Frank.

“The program’s liberal host, Jerry was taking calls on the subject of morality. After hearing numerous callers boldly claim that a certain moral position was true, one caller blurted out, “Jerry! Jerry! There’s no such thing as truth!” I(frank) scrambled for the phone and began to dial furiously. Busy. Busy. Busy. I wanted to get on and say, “Jerry! To the guy who said, ‘there is no such thing as truth’-is that true?” I never did get through. And Jerry, of course, agreed with the caller never realizing that his claim could not possibly be true- because it would be self-defeating.”

So with what I said earlier, this caller has obviously not gotten his facts straight, he could have thought before he spoke those words, but instead like Wile E. Coyote, he is left standing over an empty gap that he is about to fall into once he has realized his mistake.

“A self-defeating statement is one that fails to meet its own standard. As we’re sure you realize, the caller’s statement “there is no truth” claims to be true and thus defeats itself. It’s like saying, “I can’t speak a word of English.” If someone ever said that, you obviously would respond, “Wait a minute! Your statement must be false because you just uttered it in English!”

“Self-defeating statements are made routinely in our postmodern culture, and once you sharpen your ability to detect them, you’ll become an absolutely fearless defender of truth. No doubt you’ve heard people say things like, “all truth is relative!”

So this is another thing that bums me out. I always get people talking about relativeness, and they say logic and reason prove their claims, but that would just be self-defeating by itself without me even having to say anything. They state that truth is relative, so that would also make their reason for their claim which is logic and reasoning is all based on personal opinion to believe it’s true, not hard facts or evidence.

“All Truth is relative” and “There are no absolutes.” Now you’ll be armed to refute such silly statements by simply revealing that they don’t meet their own criteria. In other words, by turning a self-defeating statement on itself, you can expose it for the nonsense it is.”

“We call this process of turning a self-defeating statement on itself the “Road Runner” tactic because it reminds us of the cartoon characters Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote. As you may remember from Saturday morning cartoons, the Coyote’s one and only quest is to chase down the speedy Road Runner and make him his evening meal. But the Road Runner is simply too fast and too smart. Just when the Coyote is gaining ground, the Road Runner stops short at the cliff’s edge leaving the passing Coyote momentarily suspended in midair, supported by nothing. As soon as the Coyote realizes he has no ground to stand on, he plummets to the valley floor and crashes in a heap.”

“Well, that’s exactly what the Road Runner tactic can do to the relativists and postmodernists of our day. It helps them realize that their arguments cannot sustain their own weight. Consequently they crash to the ground in a heap. This makes you look like a super genius!” -Frank Turek, Norman L. Geisler.

So with this post, I hope Christians and atheists have realized something. If you haven’t gotten your facts right, you will self-defeat yourself and look just like Wile E. Coyote when you hold up the sign for some help, and the newsflash is, you’re not going to  get it, especially if you’re hanging over an edge with no way to get back.

Thank you everyone for your time and I hope to see you next time for some more head-turning facts.

Mitchell Ryan…Out. Blessings.

 

Absolute truth?

Good afternoon everyone.

Today I want to talk about something that I have wanted to talk about for some time now. But have had to study a little bit.

I’m sure quite a few have heard the term from the movie “A few good men” When Tom Cruise is yelling at Jack Nicholson for the truth. And Jack’s response was as displayed, “You can’t handle the truth!”

Well I’m guessing everyone uses that line here and there, but what I wanted to talk about was what it meant. Especially when it comes to Christianity or any religion at all.

From the apologetic book I’m reading I came past this chapter that talked about the truth and what it has to do with real life. This is what they had to say,

“We demand truth in virtually every area of our lives. For example; we demand the truth from

  • Loved ones (no one wants lies from a spouse or a child)
  • Doctors (we want the right medicine prescribed and the right operations performed)
  • Stock Brokers (we demand that they tell us the truth about companies they recommend)
  • Courts (we want them to convict only the truly guilty)
  • Employers (we want them to tell us the truth and pay us fairly)
  • Airlines (we demand truly safe planes and truly sober pilots)

We also expect to be told the truth when we pick up a reference book, read an article, or watch a news story; we want the truth from advertisers, teachers, and politicians; we assume road signs, medicine bottles, and food labels reveal the truth. In fact, we demand the truth for almost every facet of life that affects our money, relationships, safety, or health.”

So what we have established so far is that, we want the truth from just about everything and every living person, because honestly, who likes to be told lies?

“On the other hand, despite our unwavering demands for truth in those areas, many of us say we aren’t interested in truth when it comes to morality or religion. In fact, many downright reject the idea that any religion can be true.”

So I have started to post comments on some videos that I tend to disagree with. And someone or a few people will come back and rebuke my claim, which then causes the argument to take place. Now I would give the person the evidence that I feel fits the argument. And you guessed it, they shove my evidence saying it hasn’t got enough strong grounds to listen to, so they change the subject. So on with the statement.

“As we’re sure you’ve noticed, there’s a huge contradiction here. Why do we demand truth in everything but morality and religion? Why do we say, “That’s true for you but not for me,” when we’re talking about morality or religion, but we never even think of such nonsense when we’re talking to a stock broker about our money or a doctor about our health?”

Now I have has a lot of people give reasons for this, because we can see the stock broker or the doctor about our problem, but having an argument over a God that “may” not exist is ridiculous. But while doing that, they also shove the idea about morality (which I will be explaining in an upcoming post).

” Although few would admit it, our rejection of religious and moral truth is often on volitional rather than intellectual grounds-we just don’t want to be held accountable to any moral standards or religious doctrine. So we blindly accept the self-defeating truth claims of politically correct intellectuals who tell us that truth does not exist; everything is relative; there are no absolutes; it’s all a matter of opinion; you ought not judge; religion is about faith, not facts! Perhaps Augustine was right when he said that we love truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it when it convicts us. Maybe we can’t handle the truth.” -Frank Turek, Norman L. Geisler.

Let’s thank our two gentleman above for their amazing statement. Now let’s get underway.

So I have always had this argument with Atheists(especially atheists), when I would try to ask them about morality, they would change the subject. My close apologist friend would have an argument with a person who would contradict themselves by saying they don’t believe in God because he is cruel, but then change their mind saying there isn’t enough evidence.  I mean, come one. Get your story straight huh.

Now when I was just starting apologetics, I came past this story where Ray Comfort who is a very well known apologist asked a evolutionist how the water got here. The man’s answer was quite surprising. “The water descended towards earth on a meteorite which had liquid vapors rising from the rock, so when it made contact with the planet, the vapors burst and water was created on the land.” Okay, fair enough. But when Ray asked his next question, this is what made me laugh. “So, if the water got here by the meteor, how did the fish get here?” The Evolutionist’s response was very obvious. “I’m not answering that, that is a stupid question.” And with that he changed the subject and moved on. And funny enough later on. Ray comfort found out that he stated that the fish actually rode down on the meteor with the water vapors.

Two things, talk about absolute truth and avoiding the embarrassment of the question. And that is why he refused to answer, he was not sure on the absolute truth of it and didn’t want to sound stupid over the answer. And this is what I get from every person I comment to. Are they absolutely certain, obviously not. But then they want the absolute truth from everyone else?

So just to finish, I have told this to a lot of people in posts, and I get really criticized for it, because they think I have to have more faith than them, which I will be backing up with evidence in the coming posts.

Thank you everyone and remember.

“I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.”

 

 

 

Paper-thin foundations, Do you have One?

“For me, having lived much of my life as an Atheist, the last thing I want is a naïve faith built on a paper-thin foundation of wishful thinking or make-believe. I need a faith that’s consistent with reason, not contradictory to it; I want beliefs that are grounded in reality, not detached from it. I need to find out once and for all whether the Christian faith can stand up to scrutiny.”- Lee Strobel

Interesting speech huh? I found it interesting too when I decided to flip the coin to the other side of this argument too. Fair enough, without evidence, faith can be pretty much see through, and I was this way for 10 years of my 17 year old life. I only had my faith in Jesus to try and debate, and it was just like my Head Chef has always said “There is always going to be someone smarter than you and make you look like and idiot.” You have no idea how much that sentence is true.

Than I found apologetics with a friend of mine. Which is where I found this quote from my mother’s favorite Apologetic author. And it got me thinking, I have a strong faith with Jesus. But do I have evidence? No I didn’t, that’s why I always screwed up when you came to telling an Atheist about God, and he would make sure I looked stupid too, don’t worry about that.

You know, I always had this idea and assumption that proving God’s existence was bad, you know, God will defend us, why should we have to defend Him, and I had this idea for my whole life(That’s why I didn’t like God’s Not Dead that much).

And now that I see the reason for defending the hope that in in you-1 Peter 3:15.

But I then came across this quote, and that’s what made me really think, without evidence it’s paper-thin. But how about this for a quote, without faith it’s paper-thin?

Now think about this, we must have evidence to prove the faith we have. But if you don’t have faith in the evidence, do you actually believe it’s real? You could have an argument with someone and prove it to them that He exists, but what if they ask you if you really believe in that.

“Well, there’s evidence.”

But do you actually want to believe it? I wasn’t saved 10 years ago by evidence, I was saved by Jesus’ love.  Which gave me faith. Then I got the knowledge with apologetics, I had to believe it was real before I had to defend it.

My friend stated something that made me see the reasoning with Apologetics. “It’s planting a seed, it’s a starting point so later they question and than say, hey maybe he’s right. what if God is real, there is literal evidence.”

So it’s those people than accepting Christ through faith as well. Faith and evidence are only paper-thin when you have only one. we all must remember one thing, everything that has to do with Christianity has one word that circles the whole thing: Belief. And let me tell you, that’s the foundation of Christianity, belief in Jesus Christ and than having faith in Jesus Christ, and than defending Jesus Christ.

So, the bottom line: What’s your foundation. Rock? Or Paper-thin?

The Doctrine of Sin; In a Nutshell.

Bishop's Encyclopedia of Religion, Society and Philosophy

Screen Shot 2016-03-02 at 4.28.22 PM.png

The Apostle Paul tells us that sin first entered into the world through Adam & Eve (Romans 5:12-21), hence we have the term original sin. As a result all humans are born into sin and we see this acted out in many ways in the world (from greed, lust, to horrendous crimes like homicide, sexual abuse etc.). King David in his writing tells us that “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5). The Bible teaches us that human nature has been corrupted due to sin.

No-one is good according to the Bible (Romans 3:10; only God is good: Mark 10:18). We may look at someone in a worldly context and conclude that they’re “good” (they may be known for giving to the poor, helping out others in times of need etc.). But that is ultimately worldly goodness. The prophet Isaiah once…

View original post 248 more words

Are Christians Intolerant, or just 100% Sure?

The world has got to the point of in my case ridiculousness. Theism, Pantheism, and Atheism. These are the three main sides of religion.

Theism: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. A Theist is someone that has a personal God, and believes it has created the universe but isn’t part of the universe.

Pantheism: Zen Buddhism, Hinduism, and New Age. A Pantheist is someone who believes God is impersonal and literally the universe, God is in everything, around everything and literally everything.

Atheism: Religious, Humanism. And a Atheist, is obviously someone who does not believe any type of God.

So an easy way to remember: Theism: God made all. Pantheism: God is all. Atheism: No God at all.

And another side of religion is an agnostic, this is someone who is unsure about the question of God.

Okay sweet, now we have established that part. Now as you may have gathered, I’m a Christian(Theist) who believes God had created everything. Now to the subject.

When I was in a kitchen in my country, I had a sous Chef who asked me an interesting question. “What about other God’s, do you believe in them?” And my reaction was as expected. “No, of course not.” And his next sentence really shocked me. “Well that’s disrespectful.”

My instant reaction was questioning his claim. “How is that disrespectful?”

“Because you won’t even give them a thought.”

“But that’s not disrespectful, That’s me being sure without a doubt that my God exists, and their’s does not.”

And you know, by his standards that’s disrespectful. “That makes you intolerant and unable to talk to.”

Now back then, I had no idea what to say, what do I say to someone who says that I’m intolerable just because I think I’m sure, that makes me disrespectful.

I was reading a book by two authors, one which is one of favorites: Frank Turek. But where I got my solution to this problem was from a speaker who wrote the foreword who went by the name of David Limburgh.

“To them, Christianity’s exclusive truth claims are simply beyond the pale- so bad as to disqualify Christians from receiving tolerance from others. One secularist university administrator, for instance, disciplined a conservative professor for exposing her class to literature from a Christian viewpoint, which included an article about how teachers should approach homosexuality. The administrator exclaimed, “We cannot tolerate the intolerable.” You see, it’s fairly easy for these types to extricate themselves from their indefensible positions. They simply move the goalposts. Talk about defining truth through power!”

And he continues to say that just because we think the Christian faith is the one true religion, it in no way makes us intolerant of others or disrespectful of their right to believe and worship what they choose. And the funny thing with the world now, the world culture is now so confused about this distinct nature of Christians, that they now use our own confidence in our Faith, that they use as paint to make us intolerant to those other beliefs.

And David says one thing to sum it up:

“For the record, Christianity isn’t the only religion with exclusive truth claims. All major religions have such claims(From the above section of religions) many of the central ideas of the major religions cannot be reconciled, which gives the lie to the trendy tenet of pluralism that all religions at their core are the same.”

So the bottom line is “Are Christians intolerable?” You know what, I believe that isn’t the question to be asking. How about “Is the world tolerant to Christians?”

And Why do I ask this? Well when I thought I could explain to my sous Chef what I thought to answer to his claim, he didn’t want to hear it. Now when someone wants to talk to me about their God, I’m all ears, but when I want to tell someone else, they pull out their green kryponite to say, “Don’t want to hear it, I’m right, you’re wrong.” So let me ask you all. Theist, Pantheist, Atheist. Are you intolerable?

Blessings.