RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Whose Facts are the Best?
This is an interchange between a naturalist (Mr N.) and an evidentialist (Mr E).
Mr N: Hey, did you see that documentary on the history channel last night?
Mr E: No, what was it about?
Mr N: They just found the "missing link" that proves evolutionism.
Mr E: I disagree. The facts, if honestly observed and interpreted, most likely prove that Christianity is true.
Mr N: That's odd. I agree with the first part of your statement. I too think the facts are neutral, except I think they prove naturalism to be the case. If the facts speak for themselves--which we both agree--then how come we have vastly different conclusions?
Mr E: Your just not looking at them rightly!!! You need to have the right--pres--um--your just not---yeah.
Mr N: It sounded like you were about to quote Van Til, but you reject presuppositions as a determinative factor, don't you?
Mr E: Yes, I do. Listen, the Bible is the most reliable book in history. It has thousands upon thousands of reliable witnesses, much more reliable than those of Homer and Plato. The Bible says that Christ rose from the dead. Given the nature of the evidence, Christ probably rose from the dead.
Mr N: Sure, why not?
Mr E: What?!? Do you believe in Christ's resurrection?
Mr N: Let me ask you another question first...
Mr E: Go ahead.
Mr N: Do you believe in brute factuality?
Mr E: Yes
Mr N: Okay, then I do believe that a corpse resucitated. Strange things happen, you know? I am sure there is a scientific explanation somewhere. Listen, when you said that facts were brute and neutral, you made them devoid of theological meaning. In other words, I can believe that Christ rose from the dead without being a Christian. When you divorced theological meaning from the facts, you precluded the necessity of me submitting to the theological force of that fact.
Mr E: Where did you hear all of that?
Mr N: I debated some Van Tillians. They are pretty salty characters. Give me an evidentialist anyday. Van Tillians usually have my back to the wall.
That Greg Bahnsen guy--he was a Holy Terror. The Christian church never fully saw the potential destruction he could have done to Secularia, had they supported him. But you never answered my question, "What do you think of that show on the history channel?"
Mr E: Maybe facts do have meaning.
This is an interchange between a naturalist (Mr N.) and an evidentialist (Mr E).
Mr N: Hey, did you see that documentary on the history channel last night?
Mr E: No, what was it about?
Mr N: They just found the "missing link" that proves evolutionism.
Mr E: I disagree. The facts, if honestly observed and interpreted, most likely prove that Christianity is true.
Mr N: That's odd. I agree with the first part of your statement. I too think the facts are neutral, except I think they prove naturalism to be the case. If the facts speak for themselves--which we both agree--then how come we have vastly different conclusions?
Mr E: Your just not looking at them rightly!!! You need to have the right--pres--um--your just not---yeah.
Mr N: It sounded like you were about to quote Van Til, but you reject presuppositions as a determinative factor, don't you?
Mr E: Yes, I do. Listen, the Bible is the most reliable book in history. It has thousands upon thousands of reliable witnesses, much more reliable than those of Homer and Plato. The Bible says that Christ rose from the dead. Given the nature of the evidence, Christ probably rose from the dead.
Mr N: Sure, why not?
Mr E: What?!? Do you believe in Christ's resurrection?
Mr N: Let me ask you another question first...
Mr E: Go ahead.
Mr N: Do you believe in brute factuality?
Mr E: Yes
Mr N: Okay, then I do believe that a corpse resucitated. Strange things happen, you know? I am sure there is a scientific explanation somewhere. Listen, when you said that facts were brute and neutral, you made them devoid of theological meaning. In other words, I can believe that Christ rose from the dead without being a Christian. When you divorced theological meaning from the facts, you precluded the necessity of me submitting to the theological force of that fact.
Mr E: Where did you hear all of that?
Mr N: I debated some Van Tillians. They are pretty salty characters. Give me an evidentialist anyday. Van Tillians usually have my back to the wall.
That Greg Bahnsen guy--he was a Holy Terror. The Christian church never fully saw the potential destruction he could have done to Secularia, had they supported him. But you never answered my question, "What do you think of that show on the history channel?"
Mr E: Maybe facts do have meaning.