Conflicting Worldviews and Presuppositions

Even in the face of the miraculous the Jews in the time of Moses and the Pharisees in the time of Christ would not believe. Rank unbelief is nothing new to our time. The presupposition is the same. Men will not believe that Jesus is the Christ no matter what the evidence. Unbelief is a matter of the heart.

""Empiricism" as a school of thought claims that all of man's knowledge is dependent upon experience, observation, or sense perception. This is what we call neo-science. It rejects the dominion mandate given to man at creation in Genesis 1:26. This is what gives legitimate science its theological basis for investigation and discovery."

You were right about the first part, Valiant. Empiricism does assert that knowledge is based one experiences. But again, you're tagging on your own little extras at the end when you say it rejects your god. Empiricism does no such thing. It makes no statement on the concept of god. It's another instance of you trying to thrust this abstract concept of neo-science you keep throwing around. And it's wrong because it's not even an accepted term.

In your post you talk about presuppositions. Any position that is based in reason cannot by definition have apriori assumptions such as there is a god and it's the god of the bible. This is a positive claim, asserting something is there. And positive claims require positive evidence. Extraordianry claims require extraordinary evidence. That's not something a reasonable mind can assume. That is why it is based on faith and belief, two presuppositions that our outside the scope of reason.

You should like the next post even more. It is taken from Bahnsen's argument of proof of the Christian world view by the method of non-contradiction.

I must thank you again for WWM never challenged me to investigate Bahnsen's apologetics.

“. . . a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised (1 Corinthians 2:14).”

Furthermore,

“the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so (Rom. 8:7).” Where the Spirit of God is absent, there simply is no appetite for spiritual things. And as Jesus told Nicodemus, “The wind [literally, Spirit] blows where it wishes (John 3:8).” Man’s face is set as a flint toward hell, and he simply will not come to God unless he is effectually drawn, for as Jesus said elsewhere, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:44).” Why are there differences in worldviews? Because some have been granted God’s Spirit and others haven’t.

“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words (1 Cor. 2:12-13).”

This is the consistent testimony of God’s word; but it is a testimony which will not be received by the man’s whose heart is still at enmity with a holy God.

Jack, stop with the irrational. How is it that you depend on something that has no rational explanation in your world view? You have no answer for the existence of reason. Reason is not of the material. You cannot handle it or measure it in the lab nor can you find it in the fossil record. It transcends what you call science. You have denied the true God and made a god out of reason because that’s what men do…although they know God they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. [Romans 1]

Valiant, I'm not the one making the bold claim that there's an invisible god out there and his infallible word is written down in a 2000 year old book. As I said before, positive claims require positive evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To assume there is anything present without any evidence solely on faith is irrational by definition.

You're right when you say reason is not material. It is a way of knowing. It is a construct of philosophy and human cognition. Just because it isn't material doesn't mean it has supernatural origins. Immeasurable things can emerge through the process of emergence. I've mentioned it before. Some know it as General Systems Theory and others know it as Chaos Theory. Complex, intricate systems emerge from smaller, simpler, often immeasurable forces in predictable ways. This is the essance of reason and rationality. Throwing a supernatural god into the mix makes it irrational by definition.

Now you talk of things that transcend science. But when you say this, you're stepping outside reality and venturing into the supernatural world of faith and belief. As soon as you step outside science, you're entering speculation. When you evoke supernatural forces, you evoke belief. Trying to put this in a scientific and rational context is utterly irrational and goes against the very nature of both religion and reason.

"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool (Isaiah 1:18)."

Jack, this is the religion that VFT and I are talking about --- a religion in which the Lord God calls men to reason with Him. The implication is that reason is generally unknown among those who have taken a stand against God. And you prove this with your every post.

Jack, the Christian has an explanation for the personal and for the immaterial soul and reason. Men are made in the image of the personal triune God who is self-revealed in the Bible. A materialist has no explanation. He must live and work denying his own world view. This is what it means that ‘professing wisdom they became fools’. Where is the wisdom in presupposing that there is no God and then making an idol of reason?

George, thanks for input. God calls His image bearers to consider the eternal wisdom revealed in the gospel.

Again Valiant, you're asserting yourself and ignoring your points. I know you believe that everything you are and everything humanity is came from your god and it is proven in the bible. The problem is there is no evidence of that. It's a statement of belief. It is not a reasonable claim to make. Your statement on the origin of reason has no basis in fact. It cannot be proven. Yet through studies in psychology, sociology, biology, and animal behavior science can show how a capacity for reason develops through cognition.

"Where is the wisdom in presupposing that there is no God and then making an idol of reason?"

Let me make this clear. I nor many other non-believers pre-suppose that there is no god. We do not believe because there is no evidence for god. It goes back to my earlier statement. Positive claims require positive evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are the one claiming that a god is there. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, not the non-believer. A reasonable mind will reason that if there is no evidence for something to be present (like a god) then there is no reason for them to believe. There is no evidence for a god so I do not believe. It's as simple as that.

"Jack, this is the religion that VFT and I are talking about --- a religion in which the Lord God calls men to reason with Him. The implication is that reason is generally unknown among those who have taken a stand against God. And you prove this with your every post."

So because I do not know god, I cannot be reasonable? That makes no sense and is inherently irrational. As I've said to Valiant, all this has to be assumed on faith. You and Valiant at the ones that believe that your god exists and his word is written in 2000 year old collection of Bronze Age texts. You cannot prove this and you cannot test this. It is a matter of faith. You do not know for sure if it is true anymore than I do. Neither you, me, Valiant, or Chiefest here have any special powers that I don't possess. You're a man like me with the same limits and to place yourself above others intellectually just because you believe something isn't just arrogant and irrational, it's narcissistic.

Jack,

You will excercise reason up to a point. But as soon as reason requires that you set aside this particular sin that you hold dear, you throw up a wall. Sin is the issue in all this, Jack.

Because you are at emnity with God, you refuse to be rational. Jack, you know and I know that there is a sin which you know that you would have to set aside if you were to come to Christ. You will not be willing to set it aside until God changes your heart. The Lord declares, "Come let us reason together . . ." You do not believe, because a moral change would be required. Moral change will not save you. However, if God were to save you, moral change would result. Come to Christ, Jack. Set that sin aside.

"But as soon as reason requires that you set aside this particular sin that you hold dear, you throw up a wall. Sin is the issue in all this, Jack."

Sin is a theological concept, George. Sin has little to do with reason and more to do with morality, which is a different subject than what we were discussing. Now anyone can rationalize their deity or sacred texts as an issue of morality. But morality and truth are not one in the same. They are two different issues and when religion tries to hijack it, they pervert both.

I am not in any conflict with god anymore than I'm in conflict with Santa Clause. I don't rebel against him. I just don't believe in him the same way I don't believe in Santa. You and Valiant are the one's claiming he's there. I'm willing to believe if there's some evidence presented that can be verified, not just quote mining from 2000 year old books. I used to be a Christian and I didn't leave it behind because I wanted to sin. I simply can't keep believing in something that has no substance behind it other than blind faith.

I left religion behind for a reason and I will not come back until I am presented with some reasonable evidence. If you're going to persuade me to believe your secret text, let me urge you to think more critically and stop being so afraid to question. If you're unwilling or just too dogmatic, that doesn't just make you stubborn. It makes you a coward.

Jack, as a blind man cannot see the light, no matter how bright it shines; even so, the man dead in sin cannot see the truth of his lost condition nor the sufficiency of Christ’s salvation.

The evidence is within us and before our face, yet you ask for a sign…

“Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.” But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater than Solomon is here” [Matthew 12:38…].

"The evidence is within us and before our face, yet you ask for a sign."

I believe Chiefest has told me similar statements. The whole premise, if I understand it correctly, is that I cannot see the evidence unless I am already bias towards accepting the conclusion to begin with. Hence, in order to experience god I must believe in him/her/it to see the evidence. There's a big problem with this. It's called foundational bias. It's a major fallacy where a conclusion is already assumed before the evidence is reasoned. It's basically working backwards and is by it's own nature, irrational.

Asking someone like me to just assume something in order to see the evidence is unreasonable. It's basically asking me to stop thinking critically about the very premise of this claim in some supernatural entity. It goes against my nature and that of any reasonable mind.

Now you use the light analogy to the blind man. The difference of that example is that light, even though someone may not be able to see it, can still be measured, tested, and rationalized in an objective manner. God cannot because god is a supernatural being and cannot be verified as such. It has to be assumed on faith. You clearly believe and I have no problem with that. It's when you state it objectively as if it were fact that I must point out the flaws in your argument.

The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge. [Psalm 19:1-2]

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. [Romans 2:14-16]


These are the evidences of things within us and before our face. There will be no other signs because these are sufficient to hold us accountable as image bearers of God. The light before the blind man illustrates who we are in our depravity under the power of sin. There is no fault in the light causing the man not to see; therefore, more light will be of no benefit to the blind man. He must be given eyes to see.

This is the Biblical doctrine of man. We are dead in sin, but our sin is no excuse to escape the wrath of God because we are suppressors of the truths of creation and the uniqueness of the soul of man. The whole creation declares the glory of Christ, and the personal man is a reflection of His image in us.

This is why the Bible calls all men to repent and believe the good news. The wrath of God has been poured out on His Son. All who are joined to Him by faith will escape the judgment and come into life where sin and death are no more and full of joy.

‘And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure’ [1 John 3:3]

As I've said before, these so called 'signs' may be evidence to you, Valiant. But it's basically another fallacy. It's called quote mining. You're saying this text from a book written 2000 years ago in three different languages, none of which are spoken in the vernacular anymore, are somehow evidence? I'm sorry, but that's just not sufficient in an objective sense. None of these texts are verifiable. They are not mentioned in other non-biblical texts and there is no cross-confirmation. As such, the whole thing has to be assumed on faith. That's not rational nor is it logical.

I get you and other Christians like George have a low view of humanity. We're all depraved and dead in sin and need an invisible god to redeem ourselves. I concede human beings are capable of very horrific things. But so are all living things. Humans by comparison are not the most cruel creatures on this planet. Look up brood parasitism in birds, bottlenose dolphins, and lions for far worse instances of extreme behaviors.

Your interpretation of the bible creates a false dichotomy. Only a narrow interpretation of Christianity is the way to salvation and all those who don't go along with it are somehow suppressors of the truth. There's no consideration for any opposing views and there's no critical analysis of these views. They're all assumed on faith that you're right and everybody else is wrong. That's not just arrogant, that's downright sinister. Again, I don't mean that as an affront to religion. It's the people who practice this that I conflict with.