Saturday, April 20, 2013

The Transendental Argument for the Existence of God Part 2

I) Introduction
    1) The items that we will be discovering in this and the other studies that we will
         cover can be used in almost any debate.
        A) It can be used to debate doctrine
        B) It can be used to debate How people interpret the Bible
        C) It can be used to discuss any moral issues with success.
    2) What we need to be able to do is to critical think about what the other view says
         about things and also about the assumptions that are necessary for logical discourse.
    3) The evolution and creation debate is the best example that can show this
        A) It is the best because the opponents are at such extreme odds with each other
        B) It is the best because we can clearly see the impact of the things that we will go
             over.
    4) It is amazing when you think about it, 2 PhD scientists can work side by side and
         examine the same piece of evidence and yet draw two radically different conclusions
         about the evidence.
        A) In universities around the USA, this happens all the time
        B) The evolutionist sees a lot of evidence for an old earth.
        C) The creationist sees a lot of evidence for a young earth.
        D) They each think that the other is being irrational in their interpretation of the
             evidence.
        E) They ask the question, “Why can they not see all the evidence for the big bang
              and the vast age of the universe?”
    5) As we saw in our last study, the evidence is always interpreted to be consistent with
         their world view.
    6) Creationists and evolutionists will interpret the same facts differently, each in
         accordance with their world view.
    7) Therefore, scientific evidence by itself will never resolve the debate since each side
         believe’s the evidence is on their side.
    8) In order for this debate to have resolution, we must deal with the competing world
         views and not just the isolated evidence.
    9) In order to see which world view is better than the other, then we must first learn
         what each view believes.



II) The Biblical Creation World View
    1) The consistent Biblical creationist is one whose world view is based on the Bible.
         This is their ultimate standard.
    2) The Biblical creationist occurs
        A) In an all powerful (Matt. 19:26), all knowing (Col. 2:2&3),
             all loving (John 3:16) God.
        B) That God created the universe in 6 ordinary days (Ex. 20:11) thousands
             not billions of years ago (based on geneoogies such as Gen. 5:4-32).
        C) Today God upholds the universe by His sustaining power (Heb. 1:3) in
             a logical and consistent way that we call the “laws of nature” or the “laws of
             science” (Jer. 33:25).
        D) The method in which God created the universe is not the same method that
             He upholds the universe today , God ended His work of creation by the
             seventh day.
        E) The world was a paradise when first created (Gen. 1:31)
        F) God created the first man, Adam, out of the ground and gave him charge over
             all the earth (Gen. 1:26-31; 2:7-15).
        G) God created woman out of man (Gen. 2:21-22).
        H) Man rebelled against God (Gen 3:1-14)
        I) Because of this God cursed the entire earth (Gen. 3:17)
        J) Death was passed onto all mankind (Rom. 5:12)
        K) Since that time all men have sinned (Rom. 3:23)
        L) Since we all sin, we deserve death and eternal separation from God.
        M) This is why God became a man (John 1:1,14) and died on the cross.
        N) Jesus took our place out of mercy and love for His creation and has offered
             forgiveness upon obedience to the Gospel.
        O) God created the original animals and plants “after his kind” (Gen 1:11), “after
             their kind” (Gen. 1:21).  This indicates that there are discrete barriers between
             basic animal and plant kinds, but variation has occurred because of the curse.
        P) God once flooded the entire world in response to man’s wickedness
             (Gen. 5:5-7,17) but spared 8 people (I Peter 3:20).
        Q) Creationists believe that most of the fossils found on earth today are a result
             of this global flood.
    3) This is a brief summary of what the Biblical creationist believes.  More could be added
         but this should be enough for our study.

III) The Evolution World View
    1) There is no single world view for us to summarize.  Different ones hold to slightly
         different views. 
    2) However, they all have certain features which are common among them all.
    3) Evolutionists believe,
        A) They reject the straightforward record of Genesis. 
        B) The ultimate standard for the evolutionist varies from person to person,
             but they all have one, just like we all do.
        C) The ultimate standard is often either naturalism (the belief that nature is all
             there is) or empiricism (the idea that all knowledge is gained from
             observations).
        D) As a result, evolutionists believe that the universe is billions of years old.
        E) It originated with the big bang, the rapid expansion of space, time, and energy
             from a single infinitesimally small point.
        F) Energy cooled and became matter, which condensed into stars and galaxies.
        G) Stars made of heavier elements condensed to become planets.
        H) The solar system was formed about 4.5 billion years ago from a collapsing gas
             cloud.  The stars and planets are all the result of natural laws working over vast
             amounts of time.
        I) On earth, certain chemicals came together to form the first cell and began to
            replicate itself.  In the process, copying mistakes happened (mutations).  This
             produced variations.
        J) Most of the variations were not fit for the environment which resulted in the
             death of the organism and the mutation was not passed on.
        K) Some mutations did benefit the organism and enhanced it and made it more
             able to survive and passed the mutation on.
        L) The organism began to gradually evolve which resulted in the tremendous
             variety of life that we see today.
        M) A god is not necessary for the process.
        N) They do not believe in any type of global flood.  Fossils were laid down over
             millions of years.
        O) They tend to hold to the philosophy of uniforitarianism.  This is the
             assumption that present rates and processes are representative of those that
             have happened in the past.
    4) This is just a brief summary of a typical evolutionist position.

IV) Competing World Views
    1) As we can see, the evolutionist and the creationist have completely different
         world views, a different ultimate standard by which each interprets the evidence.
    2) Now that we can see the differences that exist, we should be able to see why people
         draw such different conclusions from the same data.
    3) It seems to make sense why the evolutionist would believe that a certain fossil is
         millions of years old, all the while the creationist believe the same fossil is only
         thousands of years old.
    4) The point being, evidence does not “speak for itself”, rather, it requires interpretation
    5) Again we interpret the evidence in light of our world view.
    6) So can we resolve this issue?
V) The Pretended Neutrality Fallacy
    1) Now that we understand what we are dealing with as far as world views, one may be
         tempted to conclude that the debate can be settled by meeting on neutral ground.
    2) Maybe there is a position in between the two in which both parties can have
         agreement, an intermediate world view in which contains things in which both
         the evolutionist and creationist can agree upon.
    3) Once they agree upon the rules of interpretation, they should be able to come to an
         agreement on which view is better supported by the evidence.
    4) This would seem reasonable at first glance.  Yet upon closer examination we find
         that this is not sustainable.
    5) Logically flawed
        A) Both sides have positive world views.
        B) Each person believes that their view provides the correct way in which to
             interpret the evidence.
        C) This third neutral view will necessarily provide a different interpretation of
             some of the evidence, otherwise it would not be distinguishable from one of
             the others.
        D) Also, if the neutral view offered an incorrect interpretation of some of the data,
             then why would we trust it to reliably point to on or the other?  In other words,
             why would we trust a faulty view to point to a correct view?
        E) Conversely, if the neutral view is correct, then both of the other world views
             would be incorrect. 
        F) Everyone must have an ultimate standard by which evidence is evaluated.  That
             ultimate standard cannot itself be judged by a lesser neutral standard, otherwise
             it would not be the ultimate standard. 
        G) This position is clearly logically flawed.
    6) Biblically flawed
        A) Matt. 12:30 clearly indicates that, for the consistent Christian, there is no
             neutral position. (Romans 8:7, James 4:4).
        B) On the surface, it may seem that this position only applies to the Christian,
             since it is only the Christian that regards the Bible as an infallible source of
             truth.
        C) The nature of the claim actually forces the unbeliever to be non-neutral as well
        D) The Bible indicates that there is no neutral ground, anyone that says that there
             is neutral ground is in fact stating that the Bible is wrong.
        E) Any one who says that the Bible is wrong is not being neutral because they
             have taken the position that the Bible is wrong.
        F) It is impossible to be neutral in regards to Bible authority.

VI) Resolving the Debate
    1) The need to be consistent
        A) Review
            1) Scientific evidence alone will not settle anything.  We all interpret
                 the evidence according and to match our world view.
            2) Everyone has a world view whether they realize it or not.  It is
                 unavoidable.
            3) It is impossible to be neutral, such a position cannot exist.
        B) We need to realize that world views have consequences.  Whatever a person
             chooses as their ultimate standard will lead to other beliefs, which will lead to
             others, etc...
        C) A good world view must be logically consistent
            1) If a world view has internal contradictions, then it cannot be correct.
            2) Some world views lead to the strange consequence that it is impossible
                 to know anything at all.  Such a world view is rationally defective since
                 it would be impossible to know that it is true.
            3) Everyone has an ultimate standard, but not all ultimate standards will
                 provide a self-consistent world view in which knowledge is possible.
            4) If a world view is self-contradictory, or has absurd consequences, then
                 it cannot be correct.
        D) Example of the philosophy of relativism
            1) Relativists believe that truth is relative, that it varies from person to
                 person.
            2) It includes the idea that there are no absolutes.
            3) The position the “there are no absolute” is itself an absolute proposition
            4) They assert that it is absolutely true that truth is not absolute.
            5) This position is self defeating.  If it were true, it would lead to the
                 consequence that it cannot be absolutely true and if that were true, it
                 would be false; therefore relativism is false.
        E) Example of the philosophy of empiricism
            1) Empiricism is the view that all knowledge is gained through
                 observation.
            2) It is a fact that some knowledge is gained in this way.  In fact this is
                 perfectly consistent with Scripture.
            3) There is nothing wrong with empirical methods, but the philosophy
                 of empiricism goes much further than this.
            4) They believe that ALL knowledge is acquired by observation. 
            5) Observation is the ultimate standard by which all truth claims are
                 tested.
            6) The flaw in this view can be shown by asking how they know that
                 all knowledge is gained through observation?  Knowledge is not
                 something that can be observed.
            7) How can someone possibly know that empiricism itself is true if
                 all things are indeed know by observation?
            8) If it is proved in some other way other than observation, then it refutes
                 itself.
            9) If the empiricist’s ultimate standard did happen to be true, they could
                 never prove it
            10) If a person’s ultimate standard is uncertain, then all their other
                 beliefs which are based on that standard are called into question.
            11) The reality of empiricism is the fact that it actually destroys the
                 possibility of KNOWING anything!
        F) A correct world view MUST be internally consistent to be correct.
    2) The preconditions of intelligibility
        A) Just because a world view is internally consistent does not of necessity mean
             that it is correct.
        B) A rational world view must provide the preconditions of intelligibility
        C) These are conditions that must be accepted as true BEFORE we can know
             anything about reality.
        D) These preconditions most persons take for granted.
        E) Example of the reliability of memory
            1) We all assume that our memory is basically reliable, but when pressed
                 this turns out to be rather difficult to prove.
            2) How do we really know that our memory is really reliable?
            3) Just because we remember something doesn’t prove that it happened
                 unless we already knew that our memory was reliable.
            4) This is something that we assume BEFORE we begin to investigate
                 the universe.
        F) Example of the reliability of our senses
            1) We all suppose that our ears, eyes, and other senses reliably report
                 the details about the universe.
            2) Without this assumption, science would not be possible.
            3) We could draw no reliable conclusions from any experiment if our
                 observation of the experiment are unreliable.
            4) Think Matrix trilogy
        G) Example of laws of logic
            1) We all presume that there are laws of logic that govern correct thinking.
            2) Earlier we said that contradictions cannot be true, yet it probably did
                 not occur to anyone to question that claim, it is a law of logic that we
                 all take for granted.
            3) How do we prove that there is such a thing as a law of logic?  We
                 would have to first assume that there were laws of logic in order
                 to begin a logical proof.
            4) They must be assumed before we can even begin to reason about
                 anything, including reasoning about the laws of logic.
        H) We take these things for granted, yet most people do not stop to think why
             these things are so.
        I) A logically correct view must provide these preconditions, because without
             them we could not know anything at all.
        J) Both sides must assume these preconditions at the onset in order to know
             anything.
        K) It is only the Biblical creation world view that can give justification, a sound
             reason, for these things.  Without justification for the things that we take for
             granted, we can’t really know that any of our thinking or observations of the
             world are correct.
        L) If our thinking and observations are unreliable, then we really can’t be certain
             about anything at all.  So only in the Biblical creationist universe is it possible
             to actually know anything about anything.
        M) Proverbs 1:7 indicates that knowledge begins with a respectful submission to
             the Biblical God and that rejection of wisdom and Biblical instruction leads to
             foolishness or irrationality.
        N) This is key to understand, if Biblical creation were not true, we could not know
             anything at all.
        O) This is not to say that those who do not hold to the Biblical account of the
             origin of the universe cannot know anything.  No one is arguing that they must
             believe in creation to know things.  The argument is that the Bible’s account of
             origins must be true.  Only the God described in the Bible can provide the
             foundation for the things we take for granted.
        P) Without God’s Word, we would not have a good reason to believe in these
             preconditions of intelligibility, the uniformity of nature, morality, personal
             dignity and freedom, etc...
    3) The necessity of being non- arbitrary
        A) In response, someone may say, “It is not important that we have a reason
             for things like logic and the reliability of senses and memory.  It is enough
             that we are able to act upon them.  We can know lots of things, even though
             we may not have a reason for those things we take for granted.”
        B) This kind of reasoning is arbitrary, believing in something is not the same as
             knowing something.  Kids believe in Santa Clause, but they clearly do not
             know this.
        C) A belief must be true in order for it to be considered genuine knowledge.  Yet
             if a belief happens to be true it does not follow that the person really has
             knowledge of it.  If a person has enough arbitrary beliefs, a few may be true,
             but if the person does not have a good reason for those beliefs, it would be
             inappropriate to say that they actually have knowledge since they have no
             basis for that belief. 
        D) Without a base, the belief becomes a personal opinion only and not a reflection
             of knowledge.  In order for a belief to count as knowledge, there has to be a
             good reason for it.  Therefore, it is not possible to have knowledge of
             something without having a reason for it.
        E) Example of
            1) The statement “I just KNOW it is going to be warm and sunny for the
                 church picnic next month.”
            2) Question, does this person really know this?  Clearly not.  They may
                 believe that it will be, but there is no guarantee that their belief is true.
            3) What if it turned out to be true?  Would this indicate that all along they
                 had knowledge of the future?
            4) Even though their belief turned out to be true, it is wrong to say that
                 they had knowledge of the future.
            5) They did not really know that is would be sunny because they did not
                 have justification; that is, did not have a good reason for the belief.
            6) Knowledge is true, JUSTIFIED belief.
        F) Evolutionists rightly expect the creationist to be non-arbitrary or to have a
             reason for their beliefs.
        G) Yet many evolutionist feel no need to have a reason for their own beliefs.  This
             is a double standard and should never be acceptable.
        H) We will discuss these issues in more clarity at a latter time in our study.
        I) It should be clear that in order to know something we must have justification
             or a reason for our beliefs.  If not then we really do not know it to be true
        J) Those who deny Biblical creation do not have a reason for the things that they
             take for granted (within their world view), and thus they could not really know
             any of these things.
        K) To the extant that evolutionists know anything, it is because they are ultimately
             relying on biblical creation, as we shall see.
        L) The fact that they act upon their beliefs is not the question at hand.
        M) The point here is in the fact that if their world view were correct, they have no
             justification for their most basic convictions.  Although they happen to believe
             some things that are true, they can never really know that those things are true
             unless they appeal to biblical creation.
    4) In our next study we will see specifically how the Bible accounts for these things, and
         why evolutionary world views cannot account for them.
        A) We will concentrate on three of the preconditions of intelligibility: laws of
             logic, uniformity in nature, and morality
        B) Only in the Biblical creation world view can these things make sense.
        C) The Bible must be true because if it were not, we could not actually know
             anything as all.
        D) For this reason, non-biblical world views such os evolution are necessarily
             ultimately irrational




No comments:

Post a Comment