-- Num ---- Username ---- Category ------------- Posted -- Expires -- | 75818 | ACPAPADA | RELIGION | 09/01/94 | 09/14/94 | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | Description: Reply to 75794: BOOM! Hey! Look, Maude, He's | ===================================================================== >"And God said, "Let the deoxyribinucleic acids in the primordial ooze >form in such a way as to create a form which exhibited at least some >of the quantitative requirements for them to be classified as 'life.'" > >"And Moses said, 'um, Lord, could you repeat that to me please?'" > >"And God said, 'Um, let me put it another way...'" > >-Omar This post and the one which kicked this off about the pages in the book and time and all that are really question begging. So let's, just for the sake of this post, say that God did not create the world/ universe and that we arrived soley from a series of coincidental chemical reactions. There is one HUGE problem with this whole scenario which needs to be brought out. Say I have a beaker in which takes place a chemical reaction. The reaction is neither true or false; it simply is. Now in another beaker I have a radically different chemical reaction. It, too, is neither true or false; it simply is. The reaction in the first beaker cannot be said to be true and the other reaction false. They simply exist without reference to or reliance upon truth or falsehood. Here's the catch. If we are just chemical reactions, then my Christian beliefs are nothing more than a complex set of chemical reactions. They are not true or false; they simply exist. As well, for the Physicalist (those who deny the existence of the supernatural), her beliefs are neither true nor false; they simply exist, and yet physicalists time and again try and show their chemical reactions are true and Christian chemical reactions are false. To state it plainly, physicalists borrow from the "myth" of Christianity in order to deny it. They borrow the notion that our sense of logic is indeed correct (sound, if you want the term of logic) and corresponds to the real world "out there". That logic is used to deny Christianity and to explain our origins by "logical" means. One response might be that we all have nearly similar notions of logic and it is therefore legitimate. But just because we all have similar chemical reactions does not mean that their results are true; they simply are. This is not a justification that the results of "logical" reasoning are, in fact, true and believable but an acknowledgement that we are all chemical blobs which puts us right back to square one. The classical Christian position is that logic has been given to us by God and that logic is dependent on His nature and character. God is not dependent on logic although He is consistent with it. Logic, correctly conceived, is thinking God's thoughts after Him. Because logic depends on God and not vice-versa, we have one reason why Christian apologetics has failed to demonstrate God conclusively to the skeptic; because God is a prior to logic thus invalidating the idea that the tool of logic can demonstrate His existence. The other reason is the skeptic's rebellion (discussed below). On the other hand, God is completely consistent with logic. Kierkegaard's "Leap of Faith" is a leap into irrationality. Classical Christianity stands vehemently opposed to such a silly notion. God as He presents Himself in the Bible is rational, ordely and perfectly consistent with logic. He gives reasons for why we are the way we are and answers intellectual concerns about Himself and the world we live in. The explanation is not exhaustive, but it does not need to be. It only needs to be complete enough to trust Him to follow with our hearts AND minds. This whole argument I've presented here depends on the fact that you cannot really deny logic. But if you cannot deny what your worldview cannot possibly justify, your worldview is the problem. Here's one more implication. If you have been stripped of your logic, then your arguments against God are also stripped away. If you still refuse to accept Him, then your refusal is based soley on your rebellion. There are no arguments supporting your refusal (they presuppose logic), only your rebellion. God, however, does not want war with you but peace. It is for peace between God and rebels for which He sent His Son to die on a cross that the just penalty of our rebellion may be paid by Him. In our unconditional surrender we find peace in becoming friends with our Creator. Tony