Jason Lisle: Creationism exists, but atheism doesn't

[orangebox21]

The problem with all that, orangebox, is that he, nor anyone else, can't even get off the ground floor in demonstrating we don't actually believe in God.  This is a combination of two things, a refusal to acknowledge an opposing view as a defense mechanism and a desire to justify a literal interpretation of a highly flawed religious text.

Fortunately for us atheists, this argument is as ludicrous as belief in the bible itself.

He would most likely demonstrate the atheist worldview cannot account for the entirety of our reality, and therefore anyone claiming to be an atheist is doing so from a position that is not consistent with reality (see Van Til's TAG).

I'm suppressing the truth in unrighteousness? Could you explain what that means please?

I'm not saying it's false, I have no need to. I just say I don't see evidence it is true. And as it happens, I don't care if it is true.

Sure.  You are either for truth, or against it.  In taking the position that you don't care at all about truth, you are opposing it.  Opposing truth would be suppressing truth.

Claiming to have "no need to even prove it," is different than claiming "I won't prove it."  If you read carefully he, standing upon the truth of Romans 1, says "All I have to do is expose his suppressed knowledge of God."  

The issue is that he's got a lot more to do to expose that than just quoting Romans, and he doesn't, you know, do that. His position begins and ends, literally, with "the bible says."

I agreed with you on this point.

Scriptural evidence for this claim is....

No such thing as "scriptural evidence," where the scripture also constitutes the claim.

The evidence of your claim from scripture, i.e. scriptural evidence.  Or scriptural 'reference'.

On the one hand I agree with you.  It does seem that more and more Christian's are unable to properly submit to 1 Peter 3:15.  Because while the Bible is truth, quoting it doesn't necessarily provide our reason.

Quoting it won't provide your reason ever; the bible is the content of your beliefs, not the reason you believe it, except of course if you're presenting additional facts from the outside world to verify what's there. Quoting the bible alone will never be sufficient, and it's all that Lisle does here.

Again, I agreed with you on this point.  Out of curiosity, why do you think you find it necessary to debate me on a point we agree?

I would add that a 'lack of caring if it's true' would be a specific example of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Why would you go there? Why indulge in the same passive aggressive well poisoning that's been a part of your religion since its inception? Why be so dishonest?

Dishonesty would be claiming to have known robvalue's thoughts.  As it stands he offered his thoughts, and I commented on them.  I did so as an example of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.  

It is true that the conclusions we draw are filtered through our worldview.  That being said, if our worldview is flawed or even self-refuting, we wouldn't be able to trust any conclusions that we make.    

Better not just quote some old book as justification for your worldview then, eh?

And again, I agree with you.  I don't own a horse, but I'm sure I could find one for you, if you can find a stick.  

...



Scriptural evidence for this claim is....

...

The first thing to say is that you should learn to distinguish between a joke and something serious.

However, since you want to go that way, let us look at it bit by bit.

"Not only that, but logic isn't endorsed by the Bible."

Obviously, if I am right about that, there is no verse to point to, as none of them endorse logic.  It is the same as if I were to say that the movie Star Wars is not mentioned and approved of in the Bible.  There is no verse for me to point to; it just isn't in there anywhere.  I could point out that I have done a search for the word "logic" with a concordance online, as well as other online searching, just to verify this, but I doubt you will be convinced that way.

An argument from silence?  That's not logical.

If you disagree with the assertion that the Bible does not endorse logic (or Star Wars), you should be able to point out the Bible verse where God commands us to be logical or whatever claim you are making about this.

Shifting the burden of proof?  That's not logical.

Next:

"Logic is a tool of the devil and to be rejected by all Christians."


Ephesians 2:

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

What law of logic is violated by the teaching that salvation is a gift from God, not something we merit?

Hebrews 11:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

What law of logic is violated by trusting in something a person cannot visually observe?  After all the laws of logic to which you are appealing are not visually observed.

1 Corinthians 2:

5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

Which would be greater, the wisdom of an omniscient God, or the wisdom of a man?

Proverbs 3:

5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

" I recently watched an introduction to a debate on "The Case for Naturalism" In it Sean Carroll says that science has developed techniques for gaining reliable knowledge about the world. He says that one of the ways science came to the conclusion of Naturalism is by realizing that basically human beings are not that smart. That we're full of all kinds of biases, shortcomings, and illogical thought. So the solution was to develop said techniques as a systems of checks and balances because we know that at times our instincts are wrong or misinformed. Sound familiar? People, religious and secular, acknowledge that we cannot ultimately 'rely on our own insight or understanding'. Where we differ is the authority we use to check ourselves. The secular world appeals to other men, the Christian to the Bible."  Reference Here, Post #20

2 Corinthians 5:

6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

See Hebrews 11 response.

There is more nonsense on faith in the Bible, but that should be enough for you.  The Bible advocates believing without evidence.  That is not logical, and since being logical is opposed to what the God character in the Bible endorses, we may infer that logic really is a tool of the devil.  (Of course, being a tool of the devil, you will likely reject such a logical argument.)

Your argument above is a false dichotomy and is thus not a logical argument.  Logic could be of a person, or people, or of angels, or of naturalism, etc.  

1.  Logic is either of God or of the devil.
2.  Logic is not of God.
.:/ Logic is of the devil.

Your argument is valid, but not sound, and therefore not logical.