Jason Lisle: Creationism exists, but atheism doesn't

[Esquilax]

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."

Scriptural evidence for this claim is....

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

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.

On the other hand that fact does not necessarily negate the truth of the Bible, nor would it necessitate that somehow God endorses a lack of understanding.

I never said it did. It's merely an indictment of the shallow thinking and aggression inherent in certain christian sects.

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?

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?

[Pyrrho]

...

Not only that, but logic isn't endorsed by the Bible.  Logic is a tool of the devil and to be rejected by all Christians.  Indeed, they all do at some point in their thinking about religion.

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.  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.


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.


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.


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:


Proverbs 3:

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


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.


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.)


The last sentence of my previous post:

"Indeed, they [Christians] all do [reject logic] at some point in their thinking about religion."

I rather like the way Hume put this:


I am the better pleased with the method of reasoning here delivered, as I think it may serve to confound those dangerous friends or disguised enemies to the Christian Religion, who have undertaken to defend it by the principles of human reason. Our most holy religion is founded on Faith, not on reason; and it is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial as it is, by no means, fitted to endure. To make this more evident, let us examine those miracles, related in scripture; and not to lose ourselves in too wide a field, let us confine ourselves to such as we find in the Pentateuch, which we shall examine, according to the principles of these pretended Christians, not as the word or testimony of God himself, but as the production of a mere human writer and historian. Here then we are first to consider a book, presented to us by a barbarous and ignorant people, written in an age when they were still more barbarous, and in all probability long after the facts which it relates, corroborated by no concurring testimony, and resembling those fabulous accounts, which every nation gives of its origin. Upon reading this book, we find it full of prodigies and miracles. It gives an account of a state of the world and of human nature entirely different from the present: Of our fall from that state: Of the age of man, extended to near a thousand years: Of the destruction of the world by a deluge: Of the arbitrary choice of one people, as the favourites of heaven; and that people the countrymen of the author: Of their deliverance from bondage by prodigies the most astonishing imaginable: I desire any one to lay his hand upon his heart, and after a serious consideration declare, whether he thinks that the falsehood of such a book, supported by such a testimony, would be more extraordinary and miraculous than all the miracles it relates; which is, however, necessary to make it be received, according to the measures of probability above established.

What we have said of miracles may be applied, without any variation, to prophecies; and indeed, all prophecies are real miracles, and as such only, can be admitted as proofs of any revelation. If it did not exceed the capacity of human nature to foretell future events, it would be absurd to employ any prophecy as an argument for a divine mission or authority from heaven. So that, upon the whole, we may conclude, that the Christian Religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one. Mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its veracity: And whoever is moved by Faith to assent to it, is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience.


http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_263

[Whateverist]

ICR's Jason Lisle, with qualifications to fill the Grand Canyon, says that Romans 1 is all the proof you need.

link

"The evidence of God is ubiquitous. It is everywhere,” Dr. Lisle tells Seewald in the video below. "In fact, Roman 1 tells us that God has revealed himself to everyone, and what that means is, there is really no such thing as an atheist."

Despite being a researcher, he says that he has no need to even prove it.

"I don’t really have to give new evidence to a professing atheist," Lisle explains. "All I have to do is expose his suppressed knowledge of God, because you see, in Romans I again, it tells us that the reason that unbelievers profess, you know, they say there’s no God, et cetera et cetera, it’s not because they don’t know Him, it’s because they’re suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. The Bible says."

It must be wonderful to be a creationist - all that funding and you don't have to do anything.

And, really, what could be more convincing than authoritative scriptures?  That has got to be relevant everywhere and for everyone.



Sez so right in the bible.

[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.

[robvalue]

In what way am I against truth? The whole point of being a sceptic is I'm only interested in finding the truth by the best methods possible. I didn't say I don't care about the truth, I was saying that either outcome in this case has the same effect on me, nothing. Just like whether or not someone next door is eating an orange. It makes no difference to me either way. But if the truth value of the orange eating was causing people to get disowned by their families, I'd be interested in why that is and I'd try to investigate it. I'd use a method as likely as possible to get the most accurate results.

If there was a way to investigate the truth of theistic claims, I'd be very interested in it. Usually there isn't, as they are unfalsifiable. I don't need to say the claims are wrong. Just that there's no good reason to think they are right.

I'm not trying to suppress anything. People have had ample opportunity to try and back up their theistic claims and it's been 2000 years of fail. I just shrug and carry on eating my breakfast. It seems that if God is on anyone's side of the debate it is ours, as he stubbornly refuses to give you guys anything more to work with. I think it's rather mean of him actually.

You seem to be implying I know the truth but am supressing it or something. I certainly don't know the truth, all I have is the available evidence. Which is nothing credible. I don't have to have all the answers, or any answers, to identify bogus arguments. As always, if God wants to talk to me, he's quite welcome. If he refuses, then it's his problem.

[ignoramus]

ICR's Jason Lisle, with qualifications to fill the Grand Canyon, says that Romans 1 is all the proof you need.

Hehe ...he really needs to play ball with us in a level playing field.
He really needs to explain to us what he means by "proof". 

[robvalue]

I'm also surprised to learn that I have the power to suppress the truth about God!

[orangebox21]

In what way am I against truth? The whole point of being a sceptic is I'm only interested in finding the truth by the best methods possible. I didn't say I don't care about the truth, I was saying that either outcome in this case has the same effect on me, nothing.

My misunderstanding.  When you previously wrote:  "I don't care if it's all true," I understood that to mean that you don't care what is true.  In that case you would be opposing/suppressing truth.  If you're saying that you don't care which statement/outcome is true, but that you care what is true, then you wouldn't be suppressing the truth.  

If there was a way to investigate the truth of theistic claims, I'd be very interested in it. Usually there isn't, as they are unfalsifiable. I don't need to say the claims are wrong. Just that there's no good reason to think they are right.

Is all knowledge gained by falsifiable means?  Can empiricism account for the entirety of reality?  If it cannot but you choose to use it as the sole basis by which to judge theistic arguments, you could be suppressing the truth.

[orogenicman]

ICR's Jason Lisle, with qualifications to fill the Grand Canyon, says that Romans 1 is all the proof you need.

link

"The evidence of God is ubiquitous. It is everywhere,” Dr. Lisle tells Seewald in the video below. "In fact, Roman 1 tells us that God has revealed himself to everyone, and what that means is, there is really no such thing as an atheist."

Despite being a researcher, he says that he has no need to even prove it.

"I don’t really have to give new evidence to a professing atheist," Lisle explains. "All I have to do is expose his suppressed knowledge of God, because you see, in Romans I again, it tells us that the reason that unbelievers profess, you know, they say there’s no God, et cetera et cetera, it’s not because they don’t know Him, it’s because they’re suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. The Bible says."

It must be wonderful to be a creationist - all that funding and you don't have to do anything.

The fact that he has an advanced degree in astrophysics and yet is a young earth creationists demonstrates that he has completely wasted his time and education.  He used to work for Answers in genesis, but apparently wasn't fruitcake enough for them, so he now works for ICR.  All of which tells me that the only reason he is actually working for any of these people is because he couldn't get a mainstream science job, because he is way too fruitcake for main stream science. 

Anyone who has an advanced degree in astrophysics understands the velocity of light in a vacuum, and how it travels across the universe, and that the travel time for light emitted from objects very far away from us refutes the notion that the universe is young.  To claim otherwise, particularly when one has an advanced degree in astrophysics, is a perfect example of the willful ignorance of these people.

[robvalue]

Orange:

No problem then, misunderstanding.

Generally, yes. If you can't test something, you can't learn anything about it. It may be you can measure it directly, or else you can assess it in some way that is fairly objective. Can you give me an example of something apart from religion that is untestable/unfalsifiable that you can learn about?

It's a false dichotomy to say either you can measure something exactly or you can know nothing about it. People always go to emotions and stuff. We still have a lot of evidence regarding people's emotions, including being able to scan people's brains. Just because it isn't totally reliable, doesn't mean we can't learn about it. However with religion there is nothing to test, no falsifiable hypothesis.

No, we can't learn about everything because we don't even know what it is that we don't know. But that doesn't mean that we should make up stuff to fill any gaps that may or may not be there.