# Requesting Counsel on Witnessing to Atheist Friend



## No Name #5

I would appreciate it if someone could offer me some advice on witnessing to an atheist friend of mine. We've known each other for a couple of years now, & have debated this subject numerous times in the past. They haven't even read the Bible yet, & my insistence thus far has been for them to read & study the Bible for all its worth if they are genuinely interested, because "Faith comes by hearing, & hearing by the Word of God." Since they've yet to do so & don't take any of my explanations as valid, I thought the Spirit must not be working, & decided to do as Jesus instructed: "If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them." (Bear in mind, this is simplifying our discussions quite a lot.) But the other day, because of a book they're apparently reading, we got in a discussion on philosophy, & I unwittingly fell into another intellectual argument. Below is a transcript of the dialogue that followed.

I received an E-mail after this conversation from them, in which they insisted their same points stubbornly, apparently not understanding anything I've said, & calling me dishonest for disagreeing. My questions are, if you'd be gracious enough to read the AIM conversation: do you think I've gone about explaining the Truth soundly? And do you think I should continue this conversation, or would going about that be in violation of the aforementioned instruction by Jesus? 

Thank you very much & God bless.



> Them: there's a whole section in the book about proofs for god's existence, and it's mostly skippable because it's theologian writing
> Me: have you read Descartes' argument?
> Them: it's about making justifications for dogma, not actually using logic to come to a deistic belief
> Me: lol yeah.
> Me: using logic to come to a deistic belief is downright impossible.
> Them: I read parts of it
> Me: imposssibllleleeee.fdsfdsfjod;sfds.
> Me: what did you think? was this in the book, or something you've been familiar with for a while? have you argued it in the past?
> Them: you mean his bit on questioning everything and then concluding there's a god so he can understand the world?
> Me: he did that?
> Me: apparently there are 3 different sets of proofs.
> Them: well, he did that in the parts that I read. shrug
> Me: that is very unenlightening, heh.
> Them: the book is just like lots of philosophers' writings divided into segments
> Me: I take a hardcore Johann Georg Hamann approach to this sort of thing.
> Them: and presented as arguments against eachother
> Me: do you like it?
> Me: I read something similar to that a while back.
> Me: I thought it was very useful.
> Them: yeah, I dig the format.
> Me: to have so many bits of actual philosophical texts quoted in length.
> Me: essentially a bunch of books put together in one. really cool & convenient.
> Them: yeah... and it's really great for days you have to spend 8 hours cramped in a car
> Them: lol
> Me: I'm a lot like Hamann, though, who was very deeply influenced by Hume's attack on rationalism - he was sort of an unusual mixture of Faith & skeptical empiricism, which is totally & completely me.
> Me: anyway,
> Me: I can't help but believe that there is no bridge between the a priori propositions of logic & mathematics & factual statements asserting truths about the world. so, any effort to *prove* truths of fact, taken up by anyone...Thomists, Cartesians, the folks who followed Leibniz, et al., are absurd to me. there's plenty evidence, & with that evidence, we interpret & come to what conclusions we will. mine is God. I think that's the most intellectually honest stance one could have.
> Me: or that I have witnessed, to date.
> Them: so you believe in something sort of like descartes then?
> Me: sort of.
> Me: sort of is very, very key.
> Me: there is a lot of nuance.
> Them: god must exist so you can make sense of things?
> Me: not exactly.
> Me: how do I put this...
> Me: for me, it's more like God exists, & that's why things do make sense for me. it's not a force the square-peg-into-the-round-hole kind of belief, though.
> Them: ah.
> Me: lol.
> Them: I don't get why people think gods or spirits or dualism changes anything
> Them: it doesn't for me, anyway
> Me: because w/o God, everything is in a kind of random, purposeless flux, & the will is a product of the impersonal & amoral. more than that, everything is relativisitic.
> Me: this isn't a /reason/ to believe, though. it's a product OF believing.
> Me: it's not like, "bait on a stick", to revive an old metaphor.
> Me: it's not a real argument. you come to believe by means of genuine interest & from there, personal revelation.
> Them: nothing is any more or less relativistic, moral or immoral, or sensical or not, because of anythings existence or lack of. A god has as much value as the tree on our front lawn
> Them: in the grand scheme
> Me: no it doesn't.
> Me: you're begging the question, again, of your own will over God's. if God exists, He created that tree, He created your mind, and to quote from the Bible - who are you, O man, to talk back to God? moral commands begin to have value because we know we're answering to an omniscient, omnipresent, omni-etc. God who will have us in Hell if otherwise.
> Me: otherwise, everything is senseless, & I really have no reason not to rape babies, in the grand scheme of things.
> Them: but that's all based on coercion.
> Them: and manipulative morality, not real morality.
> Me: begging the question, again.
> Me: if God is all-good, as is the case from the Bible,
> Me: then his morality is all-good,
> Me: & there has to be something wrong your outlook for seeing things differently.
> Me: & that's all what you said ultimately amounts to.
> Them: it's not begging the question -- if god exists, it doesn't mean it would be right
> Me: seeing things differently.
> Me: yes it does.
> Me: He created everything.
> Me: w/o Him, I don't even see how you have the ability to say what "right" is, or how you can ever think yourself to have the authority to legislate your morality.
> Them: his morality isn't all good. injustice is inherent in christianity, with hell
> Me: no, it's not.
> Me: again, you beg the question.
> Me: would you like me to elaborate?
> Them: lol. I caps because it's important, not because I'm yelling: NOT AGREEING WITH YOUR GIVENS IS NOT BEGGING THE QUESTION
> (*my post-chat commentary: It is, in fact, the fallacy of begging the question, because they are arguing the problem of evil here, claiming that God "cannot be all-good since injustice is inherent in Christianity, with Hell", which is interleaving their own standards of morality, rather than being consistent with the premises in the system itself.*)
> Me: yes it is.
> Me: you are begging the question of your standards.
> Them: All men are immortal; Socrates is a man; Therefore socrates is immortal. Now don't question my faulty assumptions!
> (*my post-chat commentary: This is a terribly see-through red herring fallacy. The red herring ought to be embarrassingly lucid with the fact that they were arguing against God's moral value in the Christian system, saying it is inconsistent with itself because injustice exists with Hell. Then when I rejoin that God creates morality, & therefore they cannot place judgment on it, they begin to talk axiom validity - which is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT. You can't argue against His morality & then abruptly assert, well, YOU CAN'T PROVE HIS EXISTENCE ANYWAY w/o committing a plain red-herring.*)
> Me: that they are ultimate, & can bring judgment against God.
> Me: if God exists, He calls the shots.
> Me: you are using circular reasoning with your standards.
> Them: no, I give equal consideration to god's side
> Them: just as I would with anyone
> Me: God is not on par with everyone.
> Them: "calls the shots"?
> Me: He omniscient, omnipresent, etc.
> Them: by coercion?
> Me: all-powerful. the whole bit.
> Me: nope. no coercion, unless /you/ want to manipulate it with your standards.
> Them: right, and people are immortal.
> Them: there's no way for god to call the shots without convincing people
> Me: the logic here is completely consistent.
> Me: He created everything.
> Them: otherwise it is coercion
> Them: with the threat of hell/reward of heaven
> Me: therefore, He creates morality.
> Me: He is all-good, therefore, He has a morally just reason for allowing Hell to exist.
> Me: it makes no sense to pass judgment on God. none at all.
> Them: the logic is consistent, just like my argument that socrates is immortal. The problem is the faulty premises
> Me: complete consistency.
> Me: the premises are not faulty.
> Me: how in the heck can you argue the validity of the premise?
> Them: then why do you call it begging the question when I say you should justify yours?
> Me: justify my what?
> Them: it would be reasonable to ask, "Are people really immortal?"
> Them: and conclude no
> Me: what are you asking?
> Them: you take for granted god's existence, omnipotence, benevolence, and on and on
> Me: lol.
> Them: this isn't a logical argument. It's something else, dressed up as logic
> Me: even /you/ say morals are a matter of opinion.
> Them: I don't see your point with it
> Me: I'm not saying it's an argument, per se. I'm saying it works logically.
> Them: they're not a matter of opinion
> Them: they are a matter of judgment
> Me: my point is you can't touch it. you can't say there is a contradiction. it's completely consistent with itself, you slly polar bear.
> Them: it's not consistent with reality. Socrates is immortal is a consistent proof, too
> Me: uh huh.
> Me: logic works that way.
> Them: but it means nothing
> Them: socrates is quite dead
> Me: premises work that way.
> Me: deal with it.
> Me: reality could very well violate your rule.
> Me: God could very well work this way.
> Me: just because it doesn't satisfy -you- and how -you- see things is infinitely naive.
> Them: see, you don't have a justification for your givens, just like the socrates proof. your belief isn't logical. I don't think it has to be either, and I think this exercise is what theologians do, and it's inherently dishonest
> Them: and I mean, it might be logically valid, but not really logical
> Me: um.
> Me: what's the difference between "logically valid" & "logical"?
> Them: logical as in rational to believe, to be clear
> Me: lolol.
> Me: I just got done telling you,
> Me: I think any effort to PROVE truths of fact is idle fantasy.
> Me: screw Thomists, Cartesians, what have you.
> Them: so you assume things instead
> Me: I just got telling you I don't think you can argue God's existence. I'm just explaining the way my Faith works.
> Me: no, I assume nothing, & you can't proclaim I do w/o passing judgment.
> Me: it's a matter of qualia here.
> Them: well, you really ought to avoid dressing it up as a rational belief.
> Me: I never did that.
> Them: that's misleading and dishonest
> Me: I never did that.
> Me: if anything, I was extremely honest with what I just got telling you about Hamann. you can't /be/ anymore honest.
> Them: no, but you argue with me -- when you have no grounds to do so
> Me: I'm explaining my belief.
> Me: yours makes no sense to me.
> Them: I'm rational, looking for rational beliefs, facts, etc. And you argue with that
> Me: no,
> Me: what you're doing is saying,
> Me: "I think morality is X, God thinks morality is Y, therefore, God is nonexistent."
> Me: which is stupid.
> Me: God is the creator of everything, He creates morality, & if He exists, you have nothing more to say.
> Them: that's not my argument at all. I said if god exists, it changes nothing
> Them: about morality, the universe, life, etc
> Me: yes it does.
> Me: you have to answer to Hell, if He exists.
> Them: and those are your assumptions, to back into the circle this conversation is taking
> Me: uh huh.


The conversation just began to loop at this point. Your thoughts?


----------



## Iconoclast

e=liz.
I have found that unless and until the word of God is understood to be the word of God,you can expect very little to come from philosophical discussions,quoting human authors,carnal reasonings and the like. We are to set forth the scripture faithfully.


> 4But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts.
> 
> 5For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloke of covetousness; God is witness:
> 
> 6Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ.
> 
> 7But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children:
> 
> 8So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us.
> 
> 9For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.
> 
> 10Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe:
> 
> 11As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children,
> 
> 12That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.
> 
> 13For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.



God as creator gives meaning to all things. The truth supressing unbeliever wants to re-define God's reality into his own fantasy world,where he can impress you with his or her thoughts,which are vain imaginations.
Bring them back to direct scripture quotes, for example'


> 23And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
> 
> 24I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.





> 32Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
> 
> 33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.





> 22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
> 
> 23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
> 
> 24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
> 
> 25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.



Liz....put the word before them in a way that leaves them no comfort outside of Jesus.



> came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
> 
> 43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
> 
> 44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
> 
> 45And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
> 
> 46Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
> 
> 47He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.





> 46I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
> 
> 47And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
> 
> 48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.



Not everyone will have ears to hear, yet it is that same word that will judge them,not our best philosophical reasonings.


----------



## No Name #5

Thank so much for the good response. I very much agree. I'm curious, what is your outlook on the apologist Gordon Clark?


----------



## Theoretical

Scripture matters in these conversations, as does learning about the background of the atheist. I am poor at debating, so I tend to address morality and affirmatively talk about Christianity and my practice, not in a pluralistic way. Most of the time, I find that there are relatively few purely intellectual atheists. Typically, something about organized religion really, really burned them. In many, that includes evangelicalism. For others it's severe suffering, or any number of things.

Here's a couple of points I've learned:
1. Atheists have some of the best-tuned hypocrisy detectors imaginable. However, if you've built a relationship with them, you should find them far more forgiving of your flaws than you are of your own, as long as you don't try to minimize your flawedness. If you try to take the moral high ground in any respect apart from talking about Christ's work in you, then you'll get spurned rapidly.
2. Don't be afraid to agree with them where you have common ground, especially including similar criticisms of a lot of churches and the like. 
3. Focus on getting to know them as people, and understanding how they tick. Learn about their past and how they came to be an atheist.
4. Be *utterly* and sincerely humble. Don't be afraid to mention even deep flaws in yourself, including when discussing aspects of morality. By this, you can show them how your righteousness is alien to you. Atheists don't tend to pull the hypocrisy card when you're willing to apply the standard in all of its weight to yourself. It's not comfortable, but owning to deep flaws builds respect.
5. The Calvinist has a massive advantage in these discussions simply because we recognize and consciously affirm that absolutely nothing about ourselves merits grace at all. 
6. Love them as people, and don't get exasperated if they give some argument you think ridiculous. Of course many of those _are_ ridiculous, but when a mind is darkened by the fall and has not be brought to life in Christ, then certainly their reasoning will be warped.
7. Avoid talk of "all those bad people out there" and focus on the bad person you know, you.

Most of all, recognize and remember that this person is made in the image of God and that you are not going to be able save him/her by your own efforts.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

***Moderating***
E-Liz,
Please be sure that posting private correspondence/conversation in an open forum (even without names) is OK with the other party. It can be a violation of privacy/confidence.

Second, while people may give you ideas of how to go forward, you need to be careful about becoming little more than a conduit for a new "discussion" taking place between interlocutors here, and a third party elsewhere.

Thank you.


----------



## jwright82

This person tried to knock your assumptions but they have their own assumptions to prove first. To say that the existance or nonexistance of someone or something makes no "difference" to the value of anything else is a little odd considering that if their parents didn't exist their value would effectivly drop to zero. Also beware of their category mistake, Atheists love to make them. Everything they think is like God is in the same category as God, according to them. But is God almost exactly like faireis or Santa Clause? No, their almost nothing alike at all. If Santa Clause doesn't exist what practical or logical difference does it make? None, we don't face any metaphysical, ethical, or meaning of life logical problems to deny the existance of Santa Clause. But as even Atheists admit there are logical problems that result from the denial of the existance of God, this means that they are two logicaly different beings. Thus they are not in the same category and cannot share the exact same attributes, of having no relation to the value of anything for instance. That is a category mistake to take an attribute that belongs to one category of things and ascribe it to a thing not in the same category. Just because fairies, goblins, and Santa Clause make no difference in their existance or lack thereof says nothing about the being of God.


----------



## No Name #5

Contra_Mundum said:


> ***Moderating***
> E-Liz,
> Please be sure that posting private correspondence/conversation in an open forum (even without names) is OK with the other party. It can be a violation of privacy/confidence.


As a piece of advice, if you are concerned about being a better moderator (please bear in mind I'm not trying to be rude), you should try talking about things like this in a way that's a bit more warm & human. Focusing on a very, very ridiculously minute detail of the thread & then following it up with merely one relevant sentence of advice makes it appear like you're simply bored & looking for a reason to call people out on doing the slightest wrong thing. In short, it comes off as cold & unwelcoming to new members, & like you care more about what they're doing _wrong_ than about _them_. People in the Reformed circle have a reputation for being cold & stand-offish, & I think it's best we remind each other to avoid this as much as possible. =]

Thank you.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Yikes! Try not to tug on Superman's cape. 

AMR


----------



## No Name #5

Tug tug tug.


----------



## Mushroom

Liz, Rev. Buchanan is both a moderator and a Teaching Elder in the Lord's Church. If the first does not engender respect from you, the second ought. He was encouraging you to honor the rules of common decency and only post private communication on an open web forum with the permission of all the participants. It is not a ridiculously minute detail of this thread, but a very important factor, that a Christian should respect the privacy of even atheists. It is also important that those who call themselves Christians should give double honor to those who labor in the gospel. You say you weren't trying to be rude, so you must be pretty good at it, since you were quite successful without even trying.

As for this atheist, pray for him, but trying to explain color to a blind man can be a pointless endeavor.


----------



## No Name #5

Well, tugging on a superman's cape is something I'm always willing to do, to be honest, but doing such a thing to a Reverend is something I would never endorse. Of course, I understand & adhere to rules regarding moderators, & I realize that I was out of place when rebuking said moderator publically, but I expected more from a Christian message board than getting an unfeeling admonishment for _possibly_ breaching someone's privacy, rather than having my question(s) answered in a more warm & caring way. Us, as Christians, tend to expect more from each other than we do from unbelievers, even while all we are is - to quote Martin Luther - "snow-covered dung" ourselves.

Please accept my sincerest apologies.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Sigh. You received a warm explanation from Brad, yet continue to belabor indignation of being taken to task by those that you expected more from, all the while _sincerely_ apologizing. A wee bit odd that is, no?

Moving on...

Your discussion with the non-believer took a serious left turn around this bit:

Me: premises work that way. 
Me: deal with it. 
Me: reality could very well violate your rule. 
Me: God could very well work this way. 
Me: just because it doesn't satisfy -you- and how -you- see things is infinitely naive. 
...
...
Me: screw Thomists, Cartesians, what have you.​
I think you need more careful study on the whole domain of apologetics. Here is a good study outline:

Apologetics Presbytery Examination

Admittedly, very few could meet this test completely. Instead consider it to be a humbling endeavor to review and examine one's own competencies and shortcomings.

My recommendation is that with any discussion with a non-believer, the Christian must argue from the presupposition that the Trinitarian God exists and the non-believer cannot even form a sentence claiming knowledge of this or that without assuming as such. As long as they cannot see how they live their lives borrowing from the Christian's world view, including the Good News, further discussion is generally for naught. Your sort of discussion needed more of the Good News early and reliance on the Spirit to do the real work as you leveraged a much deeper knowledge of apologetics, as suggested by the outline linked above, than I saw being demonstrated from your conversational snippet.

I offer this advice with brotherly love and in the hope that you are open to correction.

AMR


----------



## No Name #5

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Your discussion with the non-believer took a serious left turn around this bit:
> 
> Me: premises work that way.
> Me: deal with it.
> Me: reality could very well violate your rule.
> Me: God could very well work this way.
> Me: just because it doesn't satisfy -you- and how -you- see things is infinitely naive.
> ...
> ...
> Me: screw Thomists, Cartesians, what have you.​


Could you please explain to me what you think is wrong with this? If you already tried, I apologize, but I don't see your point still.

Also, it's fine that you suggest that what I'm doing is unsound, because you are only answering my question, which was asked because I always want to make sure I don't undermine the Truth in any way, shape, or form. I just need to know what you see wrong with this so I can work to improve it. Even though you provided me a link, I don't know what I will find to correct me in it (I've already read that website previously), unless you give me an idea of what you see as unsound first. Thank you very much.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

My point in posting these snippets was to showcase a less than irenic approach to proper dialog. Once you devolve a conversation in this manner with anyone, the old saying proves true: "_mud slung is ground lost_". 

BTW, what do I call you? Is E-Liz short for Elizabeth?

AMR


----------



## No Name #5

So you're referring to "deal with it" & "screw (various philosophers here)"? I've known this person for a couple of years now, & we communicate with each other this way humorously & lightly. Please note that I said were were "friends". Even in the subsequent E-mail they sent, there were many references to in-jokes of ours. We have this kind of relationship. The question in my thread was asking if you think anything I said was _unsound_. I don't see how this has anything to do with passing a college-level apologetics test, as well...

Yes, E-Liz is short for Elizabeth.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Elizabeth,

Thanks for the background. I am old-school, and think that any sincere discussion of sacred topics warrants great care and circumspection. I agree with you that when we are all sitting around with friends discussing things like religion, politics, etc., we rely upon the vernaculars of the present age and casual observers listening in can unfairly misconstrue motives. Yet, for me, and old fuddy duddy,  when it comes time to engage in a one on one with a non-believer, serious matters are afoot, and I do not rely upon casualness of conversation. I also do not seek common ground, for I believe there can be no common ground between the totally depraved non-believer and the believer.

Perhaps you have been through all of this with your correspondent. Perhaps your post of the conversation was but one of a series of conversations long since past. All I or anyone here has is what you have placed before us for review. Thus, given the only evidence before me, I cannot read in any other background, nor between the lines. My general opinion of the entire conversation is not going to change. I thought it needed more seasoning from greater knowledge. I am unwilling to dissect it line by line, and assume you don't want anyone to do that anyway. For example, your frequent dismissal of begging the question argumentation is simply erroneous, as we all argue circularly, unless we are wholly autonomous beings. Just explaining that matter alone warrants a new thread.  Another example: you claim often God created morality. Again another thread would be needed to dig into exactly what you mean by this and to tease out a more proper means of relating God and morality to others. Finally, you seem to admit you cannot argue God's existence. This statement stands bereft of any support for the rationality of our faith and irrationality of non-belief. Here you let pass important aspects of the believer's world view that could be juxtaposed against the non-believer's. And so on.

As for your last "college-level apologetics test", I sense some indignation. I could be wrong. Perhaps this is just lingering from the way things have progressed in this thread. So I would kindly ask that you resist this feeling to take a subtle swipe at me or anyone else who is taking the time to actually communicate with you. No one wants you to pass a test. I made my rationale clear when I suggested the link. You are correct to ask that I try to steer you in some direction related to your original post. I hope the above has helped somewhat.

And let me just say, welcome to PB! I am genuinely looking forward to more of your posts and the discussions they will engender.

Group hugs everyone! 

So how can anyone else assist in improving the OP for the glory of God?

AMR


----------



## Scott1

Being new to the Board, there are some rules here that take getting used to.

The goal of course, is truthful and biblical discussion, and that is taken seriously here.

A few thoughts about that, not to discourage you, but to help get off on a right foot.



> Colossians 4:6
> 
> Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.



The Ninth Commandment has broad application to the way we behave, and often we are not even conscious of it- including even things like printing conversations with another without their permission.

Only since being on Puritan Board have I become more aware that things like that matter, to our God.


----------



## Iconoclast

No Name #5 said:


> Thank so much for the good response. I very much agree. I'm curious, what is your outlook on the apologist Gordon Clark?


 Hello e-liz,
I am not that familiar with Gordon Clark ,so I am not really qualified to comment specifically about him. 
If the truth be known i back away from this type of philisophical apologetic,and discussion whether it be someone like Gordon Clark, or another that comes to mind is Ravi Zacarias.
These men and these discussions have some place or use in the world,and I know many have profited somewhat from them and their efforts.
I once heard Ravi Z on a radio program and he was an interesting speaker. I ordered some tapes of his to listen to.
I was disappointed in that as I listened to him it was more about philosophy,than Jesus. It was more about philosphical rabbit trails, than the real world,the blood of the cross, the scripture.
I understand that in some way he was trying to bring the discussion full circle and relate it to apologetics. For me personally it was getting away from how the apostle Paul wrote about human philosphy in 1Cor1-2 , and how Paul dealt with those on Mars hill in Acts 17. Then again I am expressing a personal opinion,and my limitations might not allow me to grasp what some of these men are "seeing". Once in awhile I will read some of these ideas, but overall it is out of my theological comfort zone.Sorry I cannot be of more help.
PS. Welcome to the PB;


----------



## No Name #5

Thank you for your response, Iconoclast. =] (LOVE the name, in passing.) Although I enjoy Ravi Z., I don't think there's any sound comparison to his philosophy & that of Gordon Clark's. I respect that you feel that it's out of your "theological comfort zone", so to speak, but I expect that you'll find Gordon Clark much more agreeable to the traditional Calvinist position. I'd suggest that you'd at least give him a try sometime, whenever you're ready, before forming any preconceptions. You might be wonderfully surprised.



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Perhaps you have been through all of this with your correspondent. Perhaps your post of the conversation was but one of a series of conversations long since past. All I or anyone here has is what you have placed before us for review.


Well, this is palpably untrue, to be honest, because the contrary is quite clearly stated in the OP.



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> For example, your frequent dismissal of begging the question argumentation is simply erroneous, as we all argue circularly, unless we are wholly autonomous beings.


The fact that we all argue circularly doesn't excuse them from begging the question. It's an inescapable fallacy when anyone begins to attempt to argue the so-called "problem of evil", foolishly asserting that their morals are somehow superior to God's, when they simply CANNOT be, because God's nature is all-good. The very problem is that that they apparently care to argue against what is, in their opinion, a "hypothetical" God, but refuse to be honest & admit that their ethical opinion would have nothing in contrast to an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-etc. being who is also all-good in the first place. It would be seen as nothing but defiance which, in Christianity, would have its roots in the Adam & Eve rebellion occurring in Genesis. They inevitably beg the question of their judgment as a result.

Do you disagree with this somehow? Why?



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Another example: you claim often God created morality. Again another thread would be needed to dig into exactly what you mean by this and to tease out a more proper means of relating God and morality to others.


The point here was to make it intelligibly known that God is above the law, being that what the atheist in the conversation was attempting to do was, in their own words, "give equal consideration to god's side just as I would with anyone." By trying to emphasize how Holy & above the law He is, I affirmed that He created morals, which fundamentally reveals that God is above all things, & that you can't even begin to wrap your head around Him, let alone start to "give equal conderation" to Him as one would do "with anyone".

Do you disagree with this somehow? Why?



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Finally, you seem to admit you cannot argue God's existence. This statement stands bereft of any support for the rationality of our faith and irrationality of non-belief. Here you let pass important aspects of the believer's world view that could be juxtaposed against the non-believer's. And so on.


My presupposition is evidently Faith, theirs is evidently unbelief. It is my understanding that there is an overwhelming quantity of evidence that points to "a god" & "a creator", but not unavoidably to The Creator, the Trinitarian God. When I made the aforesaid affirmation, I did so with this exact understanding in mind. Also, I cannot help but feel compelled to state here that all the evidence for the existence of God is for the believer alone & not the unbeliever. It is there only to render unbelievers guilty & without excuse.

Do you disagree with this somehow? Why?



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> As for your last "college-level apologetics test", I sense some indignation. I could be wrong. Perhaps this is just lingering from the way things have progressed in this thread. So I would kindly ask that you resist this feeling to take a subtle swipe at me or anyone else who is taking the time to actually communicate with you. No one wants you to pass a test. I made my rationale clear when I suggested the link. You are correct to ask that I try to steer you in some direction related to your original post. I hope the above has helped somewhat.


There's no indignation. I desired nothing more than to comprehend what you meant. You seemed to have acheived that more in this post, & you truly have my gratitude, & quite kindly. =]



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> And let me just say, welcome to PB! I am genuinely looking forward to more of your posts and the discussions they will engender.
> 
> Group hugs everyone!


Awh, thank you for the welcome, I'm looking forward to more discussions with you & everyone else myself.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Until you and your atheist freinds can agree on a definition of "God" you won't get anywhere but keep talking past each other. They are arguing against a generalized "God" where they have defined the terms so they can easily knock down their straw-God. You should be arguing from the Biblical view of God. Until you both can talk about the same thing you aren't really talking. 

I would also suggest, if you haven't already, getting to know them more personally. Talk about other things beside this topic. They (and you) will be more cordial and open to discuss things with a friend than with just an internet debater in a chat room.


----------



## No Name #5

Puritan Sailor said:


> Until you and your atheist freinds can agree on a definition of "God" you won't get anywhere but keep talking past each other. They are arguing against a generalized "God" where they have defined the terms so they can easily knock down their straw-God. You should be arguing from the Biblical view of God. Until you both can talk about the same thing you aren't really talking.


I already addressed this later on in the conversation, which wasn't posted because I wanted to curtail it so it wouldn't be too overwhelming to read. They responded to it accordingly in the E-mail that followed our IM chat (they're quoting me in the 1st paragraph):



> First, I want to talk about honesty, and the most important kind of
> honesty that exists. Honesty with yourself. I know you think this is
> important from other times we chatted. So let me explain why these
> sentences are problematic: 1) "[Y]ou're just using your own mind
> against God's." 2) "[Y]ou're arguing against Christianity, not just 'a
> god', when you're talking to me." 3) "[L]ogic is relativistic. it
> depends on your axiom." 4) "[T]hese are just your [moral/logical]
> standards, anyway, which are nonsense to Him."
> 
> Foremost, these sentences show you aren't taking responsibility for
> your judgment. You, and me, and all of us, are the middlemen for what
> we think is true, for whatever reasons (even what you call revelation)
> we think that something is true. If I believe there are aliens
> visiting earth, I am responsible for coming to that belief, for the
> reasons I arrive at that belief. I couldn't say, "Take it up with the
> aliens which are visiting earth," if you question me about it. One has
> reasons for their belief whether rational or not. And if one has no
> quality reasons for their belief, then you have to ask, what good is
> it?
> 
> I'm not using my mind "against God's". The situation is, at a minimum,
> once removed. I'm using my mind against your interpretation of what
> you think god thinks. The reply that you know what god thinks is
> always in the air, just as much as my interpretation of a poem, film,
> or play. So if you insist on saying you know the mind of god
> absolutely, you are being dishonest and not taking responsibility for
> your interpretations.
> 
> Neither am I arguing against the vague and general "Christianity", as
> in #2. The same criticism applies. It's not Christianity -- it's you
> and your judgment, which you are avoiding standing up for.
> 
> Logic isn't so relativistic that outlining reasons for believing a
> proposition is pointless. In fact, it's the exact point of even
> discussing propositions. I have reasons for my own morality, and I can
> be convinced where it's wrong. I've found ways to improve my moral
> ideas, and I can give numerous reasons for considering them decent. I
> can explain why they are improvements. But to say, when questioned on
> my morals or beliefs, that "logic is relativistic" is a cop-out. You
> don't take this position on other issues, and if you did, you wouldn't
> have any interest in philosophy at all. There wouldn't be a point,
> everything would be relative, pointless, etcetera. Please be
> consistent. There are reasons for believing anything and it's our task
> to weigh them.


It seems to me that they are blindly presupposing that they can invent the rules & call anyone "dishonest" who disagree. I'd be curious to hear anyone's thoughts anyway, though, because I always believe that 2 minds are far better than one & that there is wisdom in plurality.



> I would also suggest, if you haven't already, getting to know them more personally. Talk about other things beside this topic. They (and you) will be more cordial and open to discuss things with a friend than with just an internet debater in a chat room.


I already know them very well personally. We've known each other for a couple years, as plainly outlined in the OP.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

No Name #5 said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, your frequent dismissal of begging the question argumentation is simply erroneous, as we all argue circularly, unless we are wholly autonomous beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we all argue circularly doesn't excuse them from begging the question. It's an inescapable fallacy when anyone begins to attempt to argue the so-called "problem of evil", foolishly asserting that their morals are somehow superior to God's, when they simply CANNOT be, because God's nature is all-good. The very problem is that that they apparently care to argue against what is, in their opinion, a "hypothetical" God, but refuse to be honest & admit that their ethical opinion would have nothing in contrast to an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-etc. being who is also all-good in the first place. It would be seen as nothing but defiance which, in Christianity, would have its roots in the Adam & Eve rebellion occurring in Genesis. They inevitably beg the question of their judgment as a result.
> 
> Do you disagree with this somehow? Why?
Click to expand...

Begging the question is irrelevant. We all do so.

There is no defect of reasoning called "begging the question" aside from a certain prohibited move in the Academic game of _elenchus_.

"_A, therefore A_" is deductively valid.

Another one..

_God has all the virtues. 
Therefore, God is benevolent._

Clearly, the question of whether an argument begs the question is a matter of the context of dialog. While the above would get no mileage with a non-believer, it is very reasonable for the believer.

There are only two proper ways of condemning such an argument - because the conclusion does not follow from the premises, or because the premises are not acceptable to the person to whom the argument was directed. It is easy to argue that begging the question does not fit into either category, and conclude that it is not a proper criticism of an argument. All premises themselves are constructed from inductive arguments--generalizations of particularizations. We know nothing but from induction. All human thought is circular and finite.



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Another example: you claim often God created morality. Again another thread would be needed to dig into exactly what you mean by this and to tease out a more proper means of relating God and morality to others.





No Name #5 said:


> The point here was to make it intelligibly known that God is above the law, being that what the atheist in the conversation was attempting to do was, in their own words, "give equal consideration to god's side just as I would with anyone." By trying to emphasize how Holy & above the law He is, I affirmed that He created morals, which fundamentally reveals that God is above all things, & that you can't even begin to wrap your head around Him, let alone start to "give equal conderation" to Him as one would do "with anyone".
> 
> Do you disagree with this somehow? Why?


I don't subscribe to the Clarkian argumentation of God being _ex lex_. It ignores the very nature of God. Again, this would need to be another topic in a separate thread.



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Finally, you seem to admit you cannot argue God's existence. This statement stands bereft of any support for the rationality of our faith and irrationality of non-belief. Here you let pass important aspects of the believer's world view that could be juxtaposed against the non-believer's. And so on.





No Name #5 said:


> My presupposition is evidently Faith, theirs is evidently unbelief. It is my understanding that there is an overwhelming quantity of evidence that points to "a god" & "a creator", but not unavoidably to The Creator, the Trinitarian God. When I made the aforesaid affirmation, I did so with this exact understanding in mind. Also, I cannot help but feel compelled to state here that all the evidence for the existence of God is for the believer alone & not the unbeliever. It is there only to render unbelievers guilty & without excuse.
> 
> Do you disagree with this somehow? Why?


If yours is faith, and theirs is unbelief, how is not both views faith based? The latter simply faith in unbelief. This is where others have already suggested getting everything defined early: Who is God? Once the unbeliever utters "God" he has stepped into an inconsistency of his own claimed views. For that matter, once the unbeliever attempts to predicate any view, they have borrowed from the believer's world view. Spending time showing that inconsistency to the unbeliever is, to me, the vital issue.

AMR


----------



## steadfast7

All I can suggest is to help him/her to be convinced that axioms cannot be proven but are assumed _according to a particular worldview._ They are essentially "irrational" and the reasons for settling on those axioms and not others are subjective. Arguments for and against atheism stems from worldviews which cannot be rationally resolved. We are simply too sinful to be adequately rational. I like an apologetic that deals with matters of the heart: identity, significance, hope, forgiveness, etc.


----------



## No Name #5

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Begging the question is irrelevant. We all do so.


It's far better when God begs the question than when man does.



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> All premises themselves are constructed from inductive arguments--generalizations of particularizations. We know nothing but from induction. All human thought is circular and finite.


This is analogous to when unbelievers say that the Bible must have faults & inconsistencies because it was written from a finite human hand, & appear shocked that we would put trust in it for this reason. The typical response applies to your reasoning as to them: God the Father supersedes this with the Holy Spirit. The authors of the Bible & all who are saved no longer think purely inductively (in the sense that the conclusions _could_ be false or "finite") since we have been endowed with Spiritual knowledge. It's not inductive or deductive reasoning, precisely, it's divine reasoning.



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I don't subscribe to the Clarkian argumentation of God being _ex lex_. It ignores the very nature of God. Again, this would need to be another topic in a separate thread.


If you have some time, would you read this essay & let me know your thoughts? If it's necessary, feel free to make a new thread detailing your outlook & link me to it here after having done so. Thank you very kindly.



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> If yours is faith, and theirs is unbelief, how is not both views faith based? The latter simply faith in unbelief.


It's not that simple. Faith, as is Biblically defined, is knowledge. Faith, as is defined by man, is a type of wishful thinking. The difference is monumental.



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> This is where others have already suggested getting everything defined early: Who is God? Once the unbeliever utters "God" he has stepped into an inconsistency of his own claimed views. For that matter, once the unbeliever attempts to predicate any view, they have borrowed from the believer's world view. Spending time showing that inconsistency to the unbeliever is, to me, the vital issue.


I've tried doing this before. I keep suggesting they read the Bible before coming to a firm, set-in-stone viewpoint on Christianity, but they apparetly have yet to do so - as affirmed, once more, in the OP. Should I now "shake the dust off my feet" and walk away, do you think?


----------



## jwright82

> Begging the question is irrelevant. We all do so.
> 
> There is no defect of reasoning called "begging the question" aside from a certain prohibited move in the Academic game of elenchus.
> 
> "A, therefore A" is deductively valid.


Well begging the question is a serious fallacy in logic which involves more than you mentioned. The problem is when you make a argument like so:
1. atheists are always right 
2. an atheist says that they are always right
3. therefore all atheists are right

The conclusion is one of the premises thus making a formal fallacy of logic. I have also seen it used to draw attention to unanswered questions in an argument like so:
1. christians don't worry about nuclear war
2. it is wrong not to worry about nuclear war
3. therefore christians are wrong

Although it is not formaly a fallacy, that I know of, it does seriously beg the question of why it is wrong not to worry about nuclear war. Premise 2 is the problem here and needs to be proven in order for the argument to be trueful. The uses you gave of begging the question are more of pressupossitions or assumptions not the formal fallacy mentioned above. The atheist in the OP did beg the question by not providing a solid basis for ethics before making condemnations of the christian point of view, refusing to answer a legitmate logical question almost always invalidates ones point of view.



> I'm curious, what is your outlook on the apologist Gordon Clark?



I don't mind him but I favor Van Til over him. I think Van Til had a much more robust view of things, I like Dooyweerd as well. I take it you like Clark? His book on language was very good I thought. Although he and I would disagree over the later Witgenstien, he didn't like him and I do.

---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 PM ----------

Welcome to the PB!


----------



## Zenas

Personally, I find it far better to ask questions to deconstruct the opposing worldview rather than try and prove my own. I know mine is internally consistent. What's more is it's quite simple. It's simply unacceptable to the unbeliever on its face. Rather than quibble over what I know they're not going to accept, I ask questions to point out the absurdities of their own worldview which only serve to highlight the simple consistency of mine. It works quite well.

For instance, if an atheist told me they were an atheist because they believe religion is evil, I'd ask them to define evil without relying on religious terms. Depending on the philosophical argument they revert to, either utilitarianism or subjectivism (most likely), I'd continue asking questions to illustrate that they can't define evil without using religion and therefore they have no reason to reject religion. In fact, they rely on religion to reject it. Contrast this with Christianity which can readily define evil. 

Don't let them assume terms. Make them define the most basic assumptions they make like morality, good, evil, etc. Don't even let them state one position is more favorable than another without defining what makes it more favorable and why, providing criteria to determine favorability-all without using religious qualifiers. 

In sum, spend your time on their end of the field, not yours. To do otherwise is to concede a litany of assumptions they make which essentially handicaps you because they're writing the rules in their own favor.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

No Name #5 said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Begging the question is irrelevant. We all do so.
> 
> 
> 
> It's far better when God begs the question than when man does.
Click to expand...

Sounds nice, but don't really know what this means or what you think it means.



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> All premises themselves are constructed from inductive arguments--generalizations of particularizations. We know nothing but from induction. All human thought is circular and finite.





No Name #5 said:


> This is analogous to when unbelievers say that the Bible must have faults & inconsistencies because it was written from a finite human hand, & appear shocked that we would put trust in it for this reason. The typical response applies to your reasoning as to them: God the Father supersedes this with the Holy Spirit. The authors of the Bible & all who are saved no longer think purely inductively (in the sense that the conclusions _could_ be false or "finite") since we have been endowed with Spiritual knowledge. It's not inductive or deductive reasoning, precisely, it's divine reasoning.


The issue is what inductive means. For me: inferring something general from something particular. Nothing more.



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I don't subscribe to the Clarkian argumentation of God being _ex lex_. It ignores the very nature of God. Again, this would need to be another topic in a separate thread.





No Name #5 said:


> If you have some time, would you read this essay & let me know your thoughts? If it's necessary, feel free to make a new thread detailing your outlook & link me to it here after having done so. Thank you very kindly.


 I have made a copy of the item and will get around to it soon. Thanks.



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> If yours is faith, and theirs is unbelief, how is not both views faith based? The latter simply faith in unbelief.





No Name #5 said:


> It's not that simple. Faith, as is Biblically defined, is knowledge. Faith, as is defined by man, is a type of wishful thinking. The difference is monumental.


That's the spirit! Missing in your OP snippet, no? Which was my actual point in that I think you let too much slide in the conversation. That said, my view would be faith is knowledge, assent, and confidence in the truths of God.



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> This is where others have already suggested getting everything defined early: Who is God? Once the unbeliever utters "God" he has stepped into an inconsistency of his own claimed views. For that matter, once the unbeliever attempts to predicate any view, they have borrowed from the believer's world view. Spending time showing that inconsistency to the unbeliever is, to me, the vital issue.





No Name #5 said:


> I've tried doing this before. I keep suggesting they read the Bible before coming to a firm, set-in-stone viewpoint on Christianity, but they apparetly have yet to do so - as affirmed, once more, in the OP. Should I now "shake the dust off my feet" and walk away, do you think?


No, don't give up just yet. As others have suggested along my own lines of thought, attacking the irrationality of the unbeliever's world view is the first and only place to start. Asking them to read the Bible is a great suggestion. But I think you motivate the need to do so by demonstrating that they cannot even speak of God without presupposing God. 

AMR


----------

