Introduction
1) The proof of creation
A) We all have within our world view, assumptions that we all take for granted.
B) In order to be rational, we have to have a rational reason for these assumptions
C) The assumptions that we have discussed
1) Absolute Morality
2) Laws of logic
3) Uniformity of nature
D) These are not the only ones that we take for granted, there are others which
we will look at later.
E) The proof is that it is ONLY the Biblical creationist world view that can
account for these things.
F) It is because of the impossibility of the contrary that we express to a lost
and dying world.
G) All other world views lead to inconsistence within themselves or are reduced
to absurdity, that we can not know anything.
2) How can we use this?
A) We need to understand that we cannot even begin to know anything about
science, rationality, or morality without borrowing biblical concepts.
B) In order for any argument to make sense, the evolutionist must consciously
or unconsciously assume that Biblical creation is true.
C) Since this is true, we can turn it to our advantage.
1) We can show them the inconsistency of their world view
2) We can show them that their world view ultimately leads to the
absurd conclusion that we cannot know anything.
D) The first thing that we need to understand is how the unbeliever thinks as
compared to the Biblical creationist.
I) Presuppositions
1) All people have things that they believe to be true
A) No matter who you are, you have certain beliefs that we cannot show to be
true.
B) Some are held loosely, while others are held very strongly
C) Example of loosely held belief
1) I believe that KD furniture, the stuff made out of pressed board,
is of inferior quality to furniture made from plywood and hardwood.
2) I also believe that the best construction method is joinery and not
mechanical fasteners.
3) Yet, if someone was to claim that they discovered a method to
construct KD furniture was of better quality then traditional methods,
and have compelling evidence for such, I would quickly change my
belief to match.
D) Example of strongly held belief
1) I believe that there is a law of non-contradiction, true at the same time
and in the same sense or relationship, that is universal in nature.
2) If someone claimed to have discovered two contradictory claims that
are both true, I would be very skeptical.
3) In fact, I would dismiss the claim out-of-hand, because I am convinced
that two contradictory claims cannot both be true.
E) The beliefs that we hold to most strongly are called presuppositions.
F) we are all very reluctant to give them up.
2) Presuppositions are assumed from the onset.
A) Our most strongly held beliefs are assumed from the onset.
B) We have to assume them before we can ever start any investigation of the
evidence.
C) They are pre-supposed and control our interpretation of any evidence.
D) Most of the time, for most people, we are not even aware of our
presuppositions, but they are ever present
1) Just like we are always breathing, most of the time we are not even
aware of the fact.
2) It is only when we stop and think about our breathing that we become
aware of it.
3) Likewise, our presuppositions are constantly guiding our understanding
of our experiences and the evidence.
E) Our presuppositions are assumed before we can investigate other things.
1) We must assume that there are laws of logic before I can even begin
to reason about them.
2) We must assume the uniformity of nature before we can begin the
scientific method.
3) Definition of world view
A) All our presuppositions taken together form our world view.
B) A world view is a network of presuppositions in light of which all reasoning
and experiences are interpreted.
C) So now we can see the difference between the Biblical creationist and the
evolutionist. It is in the fact that they have different sets of presuppositions
that they each bring to the table of evidence.
1) The Biblical creationist believes that the Bible is true, that God exists,
that there are laws of logic, that there is uniformity in nature, that there
is an absolute and binding moral code, and that our sense and memory
are basically reliable.
2) These presuppositions go well together.
3) Evolutionists have their presupposition to (however it may be difficult
to get them to realize this fact). Many believe that the Bible is
irrelevant to science, they believe in empiricism, naturalism, that the
evidence can be interpreted neutrally, and unaided human reasoning is
capable of determining truth.
4) Some even accept evolution as a presupposition, an unquestionable fact
through which all other evidence is to be interpreted.
D) Evolutionary presuppositions do not comport with each other
1) These presuppositions do not form a consistent world view in which
knowledge is possible.
2) In many cases they wind up to be self-refuting.
3) In all cases, they fail to provide for the preconditions of intelligibility
4) If evolution were true, science and reason would not be possible, there
would be no rational basis for logic or for the uniformity of nature.
5) If evolutionists were consistent with their world view, they would be
unable to reason or do science.
6) Yet we know and acknowledge that they are able to reason and do
science.
7) Therefore evolutionists do not consistently rely upon their own
professed world view, they rely upon the Biblical creationists
presuppositions.
E) How can this inconsistency be accounted for?
II) The Nature of the Unbeliever
1) It is to the Bible that we must go for the answer.
2) The Bible gives us the reason why all unbelievers do rely on Biblical presuppositions
A) All people know in their heart of hearts the Biblical God because God has
revealed Himself to EVERYONE.
B) Romans 1:18-23
C) The problem is not that people are unaware of God, the problem is that they
“hold the truth in unrighteousness;”
D) The word “hold” means to hold down or suppress.
E) All men are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), therefore we are hard
wired with certain information which includes an innate knowledge of Him
and His principles.
F) In order to suppress something, you must be in contact with it.
1) A water polo player attempts to hide the ball under the water by
suppressing it under the water, but they must be in contact with the
ball in order to accomplish this.
2) Politicians attempt to suppress the truth with cunning and crafty words,
yet they must be in contact with the truth in order to do this.
G) The same is true of the unbeliever. They have to be in contact with the truth
in order to suppress it or hold it down.
F) Romans 1:21-23 tells us why everyone believes in laws of logic, uniformity
of nature, and absolute morality.
1) God has made Himself known to everyone
2) But not all honor God or are thankful for His revelation.
H) This verse confirms what we have seen. When people reject Biblical
principles, it leads to futile thinking, and it destroys the possibility of
knowledge.
I) Eph. 4:17&18
1) Paul here further illustrates this fact.
2) We are not to “walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their
minds. Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the
life of God through ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness
of their hearts.”
3) The vanity or futility of unbelievers thinking stems from the hardness
of their hearts, a stubborn rebellion against God.
4) This leads to ignorance, which results in darkened understanding,
which leads to a type of useless, futile thinking.
J) Unbelievers are not totally consistent with their faulty, futile presuppositions.
1) It is impossible for the unbeliever to be totally consistent with their
professed world view.
2) If they were, they could not function at all because reasoning, science,
and behavior would have no justification.
3) They must rely upon Biblical presuppositions in order to know anything
4) The unbeliever cannot stop themselves from “stealing” these
presuppositions. They have to in order to function and understand the
universe.
5) They have forgotten (suppressed) where these presuppositions come
from. They believe in God, but they have convinced themselves that
they do not.
3) He is a fool; Psalm 14:1
A) God indicates to us that those who reject the innate knowledge of Him is
a fool (Prov. 1:7; Romans 1:22)
B) This is not simply name calling, a fool, in the Biblical sense, is someone
whose thinking is futile because they have rejected Him and His word.
C) The fool may be very intelligent, but they refuse to use their intellect in
the way that God has designed it or in a way that is faithful to His revelation.
D) The result of this kind of thinking is absurdity, futility, vanity, or foolishness
E) This fool arbitrarily rejects the Biblical presuppositions that lead to knowledge,
and replaces them with secular presuppositions that lead to this self-defeating
reasoning.
F) The only reason that the fool is able to know anything is because they do not
do this consistently. They do believe in Biblical presuppositions.
III) How to Argue with a “Fool”: Don’t Answer, Answer
1) I believe the Bible gives us the instruction on how to identify the “fool” and also
how to converse with on.
2) We have already established that we cannot simply use scientific evidence with
those who have different presuppositions since they will simply re-interpret the
evidence in order to fit their world view.
3) It seems clear that God knew that this would transpire, so He provided us with a
crucial tool, a strategy for answering those who foolishly embrace those erroneous
presuppositions.
4) It is a two step tactic found in Proverbs 26:4&5
5) Proverbs 26:4
A) This is the first step, it states “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest
thou also be like unto him.”
B) The first thing that we need to notice is that we are not to answer the fool
according to his folly or according to his fallacious presuppositions.
C) We do not accept their standard for the debate, since they are nonsense.
D) Their ultimate standard, of necessity, leads to the absurd conclusion that we
cannot know anything. In which case there is nothing to debate.
E) If we accept their foolish standard, we will also be reduced to futile,
contradictory thinking, and this puts us on the plane of the world instead of
on the proper plane in which God’s word is the ultimate standard.
F) Example of empiricist
1) The empiricist will only want to accept arguments that are based on
empirical observations. This is their standard, that all knowledge is
based on observation.
2) Yet as we have discussed, this standard is self defeating; if all
knowledge is based on observations, then we could never know that
all knowledge is based upon observation, since this has not been
observed.
3) The empiricist cannot really know anything at all since their standard
(by which they test other things) is uncertain.
4) If we accept this self defeating standard, we to will be in the same
position as they are, not being able to know anything. We have
become like them.
G) Example of “science verses faith”
1) Evolutionist oft times frame the debate as “science verses faith”.
2) We need to understand that by science they really mean evolution.
3) When this claim is made, sadly some Christians fail to challenge
this claim, instead they accept it and attempt to argue by this
erroneous standard.
4) They respond by disparaging science, “Science is not reliable, and
evolution is just a theory anyway.”
5) They are essentially arguing that the Bible is good, Science is bad.
6) We cannot let the debate be argued in this manner.
7) Science is a very wonderful and powerful tool that God has given
to mankind and it confirms creation when used properly.
H)Example of “leave the Bible out of it”
1) Many times those who espouse the evolutionary theory will state
“We can talk about origins, but let’s leave the Bible out of the
discussion. I’m only interested in the scientific evidence.”
2) Many times we are tempted to say “okay” and then proceed to try
and convince them by mere evidence.
3) This goes against what the Proverb writer has instructed us to do.
4) We must first realize that mere evidence will not motivate them to
change. I have witnessed this first hand. It is because their
presuppositions will interpret the evidence to match their world view.
5) Secondly, this is the “Pretend Neutrality Fallacy”
a) The biblical creationist is trying to show that the Bible is the
ultimate standard by which all evidence should be interpreted.
b) If it were possible to correctly interpret evidence about origins
without biblical presuppositions, then the Bible is not the
authority that it should be.
c) If we agree that the Bible can be left out, we have already lost.
6) Leaving the Bible out of the discussion really does not make any sense
a) The Bible is the only infallible record we have
b) The Bible is the only ultimate standard that can provide the
preconditions of intelligibility that makes knowledge
possible.
c) If we trade in our correct world view for a faulty one, then we,
will be reduced to foolishness.
I) “Answer not a fool according to his folly” (according to their erroneous
presuppositions) or we will be just like them.
6) Proverbs 26:5
A) This is the second step, it states “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest
he be wise in his own conceit.”
B) At first this seems to be a contradiction, it is not, because the sense is
different.
C) In verse 4 we learned that we should not embrace the folly of the unbeliever
lest we be like him.
D) In verse 5 we are instructed to show them where their folly would lead
if it were true.
E) We accept their faulty presuppositions only hypothetically in order to show
them that it would lead to nonsense.
F) We make it clear that we do not accept their standard, but if we hypothetically
did, it would lead to absurd conclusions, and thus the fool cannot be wise in his
own conceit.
G) Example of the relativist
1) The relativist states, “I do not believe in absolutes. We can talk about
the Bible if you like, but you cannot use any absolute statements,
because I do not believe in such things.”
2) First we do not answer them according to their folly. “I do not accept
your claim that there are no absolutes.”
3) Then we show them where such a standard would lead if it were true.
4) “But for the sake of argument, if there were no absolutes, you could not
even say that “there are no absolutes” because that is an absolute
statement. Your standard is self-refuting and leads to the conclusion
that is cannot be true.
H) Example of naturalism
1) “I believe in naturalism. Show me logically how the earth could be
6,000 years old. But you cannot invoke the supernatural, because I
do not believe in things that you cannot observe with your senses.”
2) We must avoid the temptation to embrace the critics standard or we
become just like them, foolish.
3) We must listen to what they are saying, here we see that there are two
ideas that do not go well together. They are naturalism and logic
a) If nature is all there is, then laws of logic cannot exist because
they are not a part of nature.
b) You cannot stub your toe on a law of logic.
4) Here’s how we should answer them “I do not accept your belief in
naturalism, or your belief that all things must be observed by the
senses. In fact, if naturalism were true, you could not have laws of
logic anyway since they are not a part of nature. You say you only
believe things observed by your senses. If that is true, then you cannot
believe in laws of logic since they cannot be observed by the senses.
So why do you ask me to be logical? Laws of logic only make sense
if biblical creation is true.”
IV) Conclusion
1) This strategy all most always never enters the minds of those who try to defend the
faith.
2) We just are not trained to think in this manner, to question our most fundamental
beliefs.
3) I Peter 3:15
A) “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give and
answer to every man the asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you
with meekness and fear:”
B) We are commanded to give a reasoned argument in defense of our position
C) Many times we miss the first part of this verse which is key
1) “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts,”
2) We must set apart The Lord God in our heart (in the core of our
being) so that all our thinking is based on Him.
3) When we do this, we can see how unbelievers already know God and
secretly rely on biblical principles.
4) This forms the basis of our defense.
No comments:
Post a Comment