The fool says in his heart there is no God

In Psalm 14:1 we read, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” That’s a pretty blunt accusation - that a person who says there is no God, is a fool. Our modern overly-sensitive ears are startled when language like this is used. However, when the Bible speaks of “fools” and “foolishness” it isn’t engaging in adolescent name calling. Instead, the word “fool” is used to describe a person who is in a state of moral and intellectual dullness. Greg Bahnsen cuts to the heart of the biblical teaching regarding fools and foolishness. He writes:

"If we are to understand how to answer the fool, if we are to be able to demonstrate that God has made the pseudo-wisdom of the world foolish, then we must first study the biblical conception of the fool and his foolishness. In scriptural perspective the fool is not basically a shallow-minded or illiterate ignoramus; he can be quite educated and sophisticated in social reckoning. However, he is a fool because he has forsaken the source of true wisdom in God in order to rely on his own (allegedly), self-sufficient, intellectual powers. He is unteachable (Prov. 10:8) and despises instruction (Prov. 15:5); whereas the wise man heeds council given to him, ‘The way of a fool is right in his own eyes’ (Prov. 12:15). The fool has utter self-confidence and imagines himself to be intellectually autonomous. ‘He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool’ (Prov. 28:26). A fool cannot think of himself as mistaken (Prov. 17:10). He judges matters according to his own pre-established standards of truth and right, and thus his own thoughts always turn out in the long run to be correct. The fool is sure that he can rely on his own rational authority and intellectual scrutiny. ‘The fool beareth himself insolently and is confident’ (Prov. 14:16), and therefore he utters his own mind (Prov. 29:11). In actuality, this autonomous man is dull, stubborn, boorish, obstinate and stupid. He professes himself to be wise, but from the opening of his mouth it is clear that he is (in the biblical sense) ‘a fool’ - his only wisdom would consist in keeping silent (Prov. 17:28). ‘The heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness’ (Prov. 12:23), and the fool flaunts his folly (Prov. 13:16). He eats up folly unreflectingly (Prov. 15:14), pours it out (Prov. 15:2), and returns to it like a dog to his vomit (Prov. 26:11). He is so in love with his folly and so dedicated to its preservation that ‘It is better for a man to meet a bear robbed of her whelps, than a fool is his folly’ (Prov. 17:12). The fool does not want to find the truth; he only wants to be self-justified in his own imaginations. While he may feign objectivity, ‘A fool hath no delight in understanding, but only that his heart may reveal itself’ (Prov. 18:2). He is committed to his own presuppositions and wishes to guard his autonomy. Thus he will not depart from evil (Prov. 13:19), and thus all his knowledgeable talk reveals nothing but perverse and lying lips (Prov. 10:18; 19:1). He may talk proudly, but “A fool’s mouth is his destruction, and his lips are a snare of his soul’ (Prov. 18:7). He shall not endure the judgment of God (Ps. 5:5).” (Greg Bahnsen, Always Ready, pp. 55-56)

Having briefly examined the Bible’s use of the word “fool,” we might ask, “So, why bother responding to a fool at all?” Well, the Bible actually tells us to expose and cast down (or destroy) the foolishness of the world and its foolish arguments. However, there is a razor’s edge Christians must walk in relation to this task. Proverbs 26:4 says,

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.”

This means that we are not to engage in the same type of argumentation as the fool. That is, we are not argue from the presupposition that we are autonomous creatures. Bahnsen comments,

What the world calls ‘foolish’ is in reality wisdom. Conversely, what the world deems ‘wise’ in actually foolish. The unbeliever has his standards all turned around, and thus he mocks the Christian faith or views it as intellectually dishonorable. (Bahnsen, p. 59)

The point is, we cannot pretend to have some sort of objective neutrality and autonomy when it comes to forming a worldview or responding to someone else’s. The Apostle Paul says that unbelievers actually know the truth about God, but they suppress that truth in unrighteousness. That is, they know the Christian God, but because they do not want to submit to him, they run from him and suppress their knowledge of him. Thus, the Christian should not argue from the vantage point of human autonomy - intellectual or moral.

However, Proverbs 26:5 (the very next verse) says,

“Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.”

One might read this verse and assume that Scripture is contradicting itself. However, what this verse is saying is that sometimes it is necessary to expose a fool’s foolishness by doing an internal critique of his system, thereby showing him that his argument is built upon sand.

I cannot summarize this two-fold apologetic procedure any better than Greg Bahnsen. He writes,

In the first place, the unbeliever should not be answered in terms of his own misguided presuppositions; the apologist should defend his faith by working within his own presuppositions. …But then in the second place the apologist should answer the fool according to his self-proclaimed presuppositions (i.e., according to his folly). In so doing he aims to show the unbeliever the outcome of those assumptions. Pursued to their consistent end presuppositions of unbelief render man’s reasoning vacuous and his experience unintelligible; in short, they lead to the destruction of knowledge, the dead-end of epistemological futility, to utter foolishness. (Bahnsen 61-62)

I’m haveing a really tough time trying to figure out which side of this line I’m on.

I do not assume that man is autonomous. Makeing such an assumtion would be anathama to me. Yet, at the same time I don’t know that there is a God.

Ah yes…Bahnsen. The champion of dogmatic, mean-spirited Christian obscurantism. I do have a soft spot for the guy: it was “Aways Ready” that first got me interested in philosophy…back in my Christian high school days. I went into College all ready to take on my professors…confident that they would “give me the rope” with which I could hang them with my intellectually superior standards.

However, I found something very curious when I actually got out into the real world: my professors were often more than willing to be wrong. Hardly behavior befitting the stereotypical “fool” I was told I’d meet in my classrooms–the one who “only wants to be self-justified in his own imaginations.” Of course, there are people like that in academia. There are people like that everywhere. But I came to realize the person who most accurately fit that description was ME. Me, with my self-proclaimed “superior” presuppositions. I so totally expected that the “impossibility of the contrary” would manifest itself in every debate with unbelievers that I began to simply ignore any indication of an unbeliever’s credibility. I never actually READ Bertrand Russell; I only skimmed his books in search of logical loopholes. Had I been tested on what Russell actually SAID, I would have been incapable of representing his arguments accurately; it was my evangelical duty to discount all opposing viewpoints before even hearing them. And that meant I couldn’t genuinely hear them to begin with.

The reason why Bahnsen’s arguments are philosophically inept is because they don’t actually take opposing viewpoints into account. The presuppositionalists go around assuming that every worldview that isn’t evangelical fundamentalism is wrong. As turns out, it is actually the presuppositionalist that “cannot think of himself as mistaken”; people who have not so dogmatically committed themselves are often perfectly willing to be wrong about a number of issues on which the Bahnsenian dogmatists cannot even consider opposing viewpoints. I’ve seen it many times. And it was that fundamental hypocrisy–the fact that Bahnsen accuses his opponents (i.e. everyone except his fundamentalist allies) so viciously of that which he himself is most guilty of–that ended up turning me away from fundamentalism.

See you in hell suckaz! :evilfun:

The entire concept of ‘god’ rests on the assumption that the bible is ‘his’ word. Research into biblical myth (for those with enough brains to search outside its pages to verify its authenticity) can be traced to older zoroastrian and pagan myths, thus undermining its already extremely shaky credibility.
The bible is a book of fables, interlaced with bits of credible history. To assume from that an omnicient intelligence watches us from the sky is not only ludicrous, but amazing.
The idea is possible, but no more possible than us being in the matrix, or are being ruled by the big green slobbering aliens from the simpsons.

Right. It’s so shakey that every single group on earth is first in line to attack it before any other religion. It’s so shakey that evolutionists who do nothing but try as hard as possible to discredit it, are unable to in a televised debate against well educated Bible scholars.

It’s so shakey that of the 1000+ prophecies within it’s text, Bible scholars have researched and concluded that around 600 have taken place and that the rest are not going to come until the future.

It’s so shakey that, it’s the only ancient book to mention the world was round over a thousand years before science figured it out.

It’s so shakey that it’s the only book in recorded history to prophesy both the destruction and eventual ressurection of an entire nation which was officially destroyed in 70 AD and reborn in 1948 on May 6th.

It’s so shakey that the Dead Sea Scrolls which scientists touted as the Bible killers were going to completely disprove the Bible only to discover that they agreed with the Bible 100% and confirmed that the Bible had been passed down correctly for over 100 generations.

It’s so shakey that it predicted an massive increase in knowledge toward the end days.

I could go on for hours, but you probably wouldn’t know about half the stuff I’m talking about since you probably never read the Bible or studied anything in it.

See the reason the Bible calls people like you fools is because, despite all the evidence, despite all the prophecy that has come true which has taken place all the way to the liftime of our grandparents, you still refuse to believe. That is why you are a fool.

And I will give you even more future prophecy right from the Bible that will occur in the future. And I bet even then, when this like all other prophecy this amazing book has stated would pass, does pass, that you will still be making excuses as to why this could of happened and it still didn’t mean the Bible was true.

So I will give you 2 prophecies right now that have yet to happen. 2 huge prophecies.

There will be peace in the Middle East. For 7 years a false peace will exist in the Middle East. And the ancient Temple Mount known as Solomon’s Temple will be rebuilt. Currently the Dome of the Roc, Islam’s third most holiest site sits on the exact spot, the one and only spot that the Temple Mount can be rebuilt on. The rebuilding of this Temple Mount will signal the covenant between the Jews and the anti-Christ for 7 years.

So there you go. 2 bold prophecies yet to come true. You try and say the Bible is a bunch of bullshit after these come true. Hey how many nations have been predicted to fall and rise again between the span of 1 thousand years. I’ll give you a hint, only 1, the nation of Israel, as predicted in the Bible. No other nation has ever been destroyed for over 900 years only to be ressurected again.

The Bible is the most hated book on earth by every atheist,evolutionists, non-christian. Because it represents knowledge and truth that they just cannot counter or get rid of. Because the word of God never dies no matter what you do. Even Satan himself cannot destroy the word of God, do you think a bunch of pathetic humans who think their intellectualism trumps that of God have the abilitiy to disprove him? Only mankind could be capable of such arrogance.

It is interesting, but hardly surprising, that you have ignored all my points.
You don’t contend the bible being a collage of zoroastrian and pagan myth? I guess it is easier to ignore the inconveniant facts…

but on to your post

The picture you paint is entirely false. First, I challenge you to produce just 1 ‘prophecy’ that has come true. Second, people don’t actively try to discredit the bible, they justifiably reject it as the fluff that it is when thrown at them by prosletizing believers. Thirdly,science is not in the buisness of disproving anything, but building theories based on evidence. Scientists by and large reject the bible as myth simply because no evidence has ever been produced to suggest it is indeed anymore than just another book of mythology.
Your assuming I haven’t read the bible is unfounded. I have studied it at length, as well as scores of other forms of mythology.Mythology is a hobby of mine. We don’t all come to conclusions based on hystaria and knee jerk reactions, some of us prefer to be informed before forming opinions.
Again, in case you missed it. I challenge you to produce just 1 fact verifying a ‘biblical prophecy’ has come to pass. Ill make a ‘leap of faith’ that you know what ‘fact’ means…

No it’s not. I don’t know a single person who “hates” the Bible. I personally think the Bible is a fascinating anthology of religious literature. I have enjoyed reading it…both before and after I lost my faith. So you can consider that an evidential refutation of your bizarre claim. In my experience, most educated people do find narrow and beligerant views such as yours very annoying. However, I doubt that amounts to hatred any kind.

You seem to think that your presuppositionalist pseudo-philosophy is some kind of threat to the intellectual foundations of science and secular thought. I assure you they aren’t: you fundamentalists are the paranoid ones, the ones who view differing ideas as a threat to your entire way of life. And your response to this threat is to refuse to listen to anyone who doesn’t share your outlook on the world. So the fact that I can give you detailed reasons why Bahnsen’s thought project was pretty much an arrogant farce won’t make much difference. The only remedy to your closed-mindedness lies in accepting that you could be wrong. Yes, you could be wrong…your conviction that every other worldview besides yours must be flawed, your belief that six hundred Biblical prophecies came true (a notion that most scholars reject, by the way), your fundamental conviction that the Bible is inerrant: all of that could very easily be wrong. Humility demands that you accept that possibility. And the fact that you choose not to accept it makes you a brazen hypocrite.

See this is why the Bible says there is no point trying to argue with a fool. I named one already. The rebirth of Israel. Foretold for almost 1000 years after the destruction of the nation, it came true in 1948. Please, if you are that interested in actually finding truth in the Bible, then pick up the books of a few Biblical scholars who have studied and written on the subject.

Oh it is a threat. Tht’s the reason why the atheists are so threatened by religious people as are the evolutionists. If the evolutionists are so certain that there is no God why are they so afraid to let any other possible idea in school other than evolution which has never been even close to proven? And atheists show more fear for a so called god they don’t believe in than they do for the pink elephants that don’t exist. Seems to be somebody is afraid of something.

A hypocrite? It’s called FAITH which is believing when you aren’t 100% sure. Boy you’d love to think you make sense but you really don’t. I love this board. It’s filled mostly with young arrogant college people who read a few books, took a few classes, and think they are philosophers lol. The real hypocrisy here is the amazing hostility towards anyone with a belief in God on this board by a bunch of wannabee philosophers who wouldn’t know the first thing about real philosophy. You are filled with just as many of these so called hypocricies as I am except you have no excuse because for you everything is based on science. My faith explains away all of my so called hypocricies because faith is belief without complete proof thus leaving a chance to be wrong.

I love how you just stick a full paragraph of judgements on what I believe, who I am, and the like. You don’t know what I have studied, or what I have learned but I assure you it was enough to learn that I will not be caught in God’s wrath on judgement day.

I am leaving this board now as it is clear that being here is pointless. Free thought does not exist here, the majority of so called philosophers can be described in 2 words. Arrogant secularists. The only exchange of ideas occur through the forceful beliefs of the arrogant majority on this board which renders discussing any subject relating to spirituality or religion pointless.

Right. It’s so shakey that every single group on earth is first in line to attack it before any other religion. It’s so shakey that evolutionists who do nothing but try as hard as possible to discredit it, are unable to in a televised debate against well educated Bible scholars.

I’ve never known anyone to “attack” the Bible. I’ve known people to question it, but never “attack.” Perhaps you should inform me of your definition of “attack” so we can start from the same mark.

Since when have evolution and the Bible been at odds? You can believe in the Bible and evolution. The two are not mutually exlusive. And I have yet to hear of anyone having the least convincing argument against evolution. Perhaps you could share with us something you find to be convincing.

And it’s easy to out debate someone. It’s even easier if they’re not people well-versed in argumentation. This gives me no reason to believe anything from this televised debate.

It’s so shakey that, it’s the only ancient book to mention the world was round over a thousand years before science figured it out.

The Greeks knew the world was round. Any sailor knows the world is round. I need something more than this.

And having read some Nostradamus, etc., I know for a fact you can try to make almost any prophecy seem as if “it has come true!” It in no way means that it has. People who believe in prophecy find ways to make it plausible.

I give the Bible credit in that it has nuggets of wisdom. I think Jesus by far and large had the right idea. I see nothing wrong with his philosophy. But in asking, WWJD? Do you really think he’d try and shove the collective face of the opposition in the mud? I think he probably wouldn’t. He’d teach by example. I think that was his greatest achievement. So, if you really want to convince people that Christianity is worthwhile, live a good life and let them discover it for themselves, cause trying to beat them into the ground is just going to make them more defensive and you’ll achieve nothing.

And for future reference: wisdom /= blind faith.

By the previous examples, it would seem to indicate that Socrates, John Stuart Mill, etc. all, are/were unwise people. And I’d have to claim quite the opposite. There is wisdom in questioning, and continual, repeated, and perhaps even heated debate, done with an open-mind and with the admission that one may quite possibly be wrong. I’ve met few religious devotees willing to do this, but many philosophers who are eager to do so.

:laughing: Perhaps you could explain what that is.

Fading Soul

Oh, Fading Soul, at long last, the one I have waited for, the man apart from myself that sees what’s going on here!

I love you, whoever you are!

phrygianslave the wise thanks.

Logo why don’t we take this a step back first. Religious people are closer to real philosophers than any intellectual college student. That is what makes this board so ironic and screwed up. When I sit here and read a thread of wannabee philosophers going on and on about how God cannot exist I just laugh.

Let’s stop the whole universe because so and so just finished his philosophy class so now he is armed with the unlimited knowledge of the world and has declared God is fake.

Real philosophers ask questions, they do not reject that which they cannot explain. People of various religions around the world have faith. By definition faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven. But while these people of various religions affirm that there is infact a God and they serve it, they do not proclaim with pure arrogance that God exists without a doubt while the secularists on this board claim after taking a whole philosophy class and reading about a couple of philosophers that you are an idiot if you believe in God. People who follow religion instead have faith to believe in the unseen like anyone who believes in thw wind. You can’t see it, you can’t smell it, you can’t taste it, but it’s there.

That is why this board is a sham. The arrogance that secularists on this board have, to proclaim that anyone who follows a religion is below them is by far the biggest indicator of a bunch of closed minded thinkers far far beyond the realm of what any of them would accuse a religious person of being.

Religious people are always thinking, religious people are by nature real philosophers because they do not believe in anything with 100% certainty. The definition of a philosopher as described by the dictionary is as follows.

Philosopher - 1 a : a person who seeks wisdom or enlightenment

This board seeks neither. What it seeks to do is impose a dogmatic secular overtone to every single person who dare speaks about his or her convictions when they deal with religion. Traditional religions on this board are shunned as primitive and worthless. But what is even more ironic is that at the current stage in human existence it is impossible for any philosopher to be secular yet most on this board claim to be philosophers. How can any one of you who is secular claim to have the slightest grasp of philosophy when to deny the possability of the existence of God is to deny the basic beliefs of philosophy itself. To keep your mind open to search for wisdom and enlightenment.

The fact that you seal the religious portion of philosophy off as if it meas nothing and is completely worthless means you are not real philosophers no matter how many stupid college classes you have taken or how many A’s you have received.

I will reiterate this again.

Religious people have faith. Faith leaves room open to always ask questions. Faith is a belief in that which cannot be proven.

Secularists have arrogance. Arrogance to think that they hold all the answers and to close their minds off to the beliefs which they deem to be impossible without ever really knowing.

I’ve made my point. This board is vastly underpopulated for it’s size. I think I know why now though. No real debate ever takes place. I’ll go find a real philosophical site with real philosophers who are open and anxious to learn about all the possabilities not just the ones that they arrogantly deem to be right and wrong with absolute authority.

Fading Soul

Don’t leave! Don’t let the trolls get at you.

There are some very irritating people on this site. On occasion one wishes one had a swat to hand as these nuisance flies buzz around annoying one . . . but it is better to humble oneself and forgive them! In the long run they harm no-one but themselves.

And of course there are some really open-minded interesting people here as well.

Fadingsoul, you continue to call me and other athiests arrogant because we refuse to believe in a god, when really, are not you the arrogant one claiming to know it all because you have “faith”?

Your faith means nothing to me.

I can have faith in pink elephants that you earlier mentioned, I could spend day after day reading the books of others who have stories of pink elephants. My faith grows day by day, I can feel that my faith in him is so strong, the pink elephant MUST exist! Anyone who believes otherwise must be a fool!

My mere faith in him is all I need to prove that he exists…

Give me a break. But anyways, it is not my job to prove that your God does not exist, when you cannot even prove he does exist yourself. The only thing you say is that your faith is enough proof.

Why should I even bother then?

Anyways, earlier you stated that the Bible was the first to mention that the earth was round. Let me share with you a few quotes from the Bible:

These are taken from

skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

^ you all might want to check that out. Has alot of interesting skeptical things one can find in the Bible.

John “saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth.” Well, I guess that settles it: the earth is flat and square-shaped, or at least quadrilateral in shape. 7:1

“Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him.” This could only happen on a flat earth. 1:7

That’s just two.

I don’t know, there is so much to talk about on this subject, but really I’m not wasting my time talking to you Fadingsoul unless you shapen up and stop being so accusing. If you settle down a bit and talk this out like a “real philosopher” that you seam to think you are, then maybe this can be lightened up a little bit and we can continue a nice clean philosophical debate.

I only hope us ignorant non-believers can understand you considering we are not “real philosophers” according to you.

What a bunch of crap, but still I’m open to more discussion.

If you’re going to say I said things at least make them accurate. I never called you arrogant because you didn’t believe in god. Thanks for taking my words out of context though. I said you are arrogant because you flatly deny the possability based on your limited intellectual capacity. That is arrogant. You don’t see believers in God making bold claims like “God is 100% real so we don’t need faith” but you see atheists asserting the false claim that “there is no god” all the time.

So thank you for once again proving my point that this site is filled with a bunch of secularists who already have preconceived notions of people with religious beliefs so much so that you took out of context my exact words only a single post later!

As for your website, do you seriously think that anything on that site holds up? Would you like for me to get the mounting evidence that disproves evolution? If you are an atheist that believes in evolution I’d love to debate you on the scientific facts both for an again evolution and Christianity.

I’ll start by refuting some of what you just posted on a link. Do not expect me to continue to do this as it is much easier for you to click a link of somebody elses work than it is for me to sit here and type all day to refute all the claims you yourself didn’t have to make but just point and click to find.

1.The Genesis 1 account also conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In this account the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know the true order of events was just the opposite. 1:1-2:3

The fact of the matter is, we do not know the order of events. This is scientific fraud. Science has not proven the order of things to date. They have mearly speculates, evolution is a theory not a fact and for good reason. It has enough holes in it to make swiss cheese look full.

To date science has yet to find a single transitional fossil linking any of these species to another.

2.God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn’t make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be “the evening and the morning” on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? 1:3-5

Assuming God exists, exactly what scientific laws apply to him if any? This is quite rediculous as God could probably create light in any form he wishes. Perhaps he created “light” and used the stars to “sustain” it. In any event this arguement is folly. The only way to disprove God using the above logic is to assume that if God exists at all he is incapable of switching whatever he wants to whatever order he wants. And since we know that if God does infact exist he can do as he pleases, the above serves to do little to disprove God.

3.God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program. 1:6-8

Again this is such non-sense. Purely human speculation. Tell me how do you know heaven is not outside of space time itself? How do you know heaven is not another dimension? Fact is you don’t so this is just more bull.

4.Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11

Once again twisting the Bible to come to a bias conclusion. Light was created on the first day.

Genesis 1

  1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

See that? It says LIGHT. Now I’m sorry that you atheists cannot except the fact that an omnipotent God could rceate light without the stars, but if you want to continue this game you have to accept that he infact can do whatever he wants if he exists therefore science as we know it in limited capacity cannot trump the ability of God to do as he pleases.

This site you placed up reminds me of a catch 22. It takes the Bible and says oh this is all in the wrong order so God can’t be real, when if God is real then the order is at his discretion. Catch 22 of bullshit is what that site is.

5.God lets “the earth bring forth” the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all. 1:11

There is no reason to respond to this one.

6.In an apparent endorsement of astrology, God places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used “for signs”. This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read “the signs” in the Zodiac in an effort to predict what will happen on Earth. 1:14

Astrology was good at one time. Before makind sinned the entire plan for humanity was written in the stars. Afterward it was corrupted and God forbid makind to use magic.

7.God makes two lights: “the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night.” But the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to “rule the night”, does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky? 1:16

This is seriously getting rediculous. The author of these questions assumes so much and interprets verses in a way that he can manipulate the context to come to the conclusion he wishes to dispute the Bible. Whether or not the moon goes through the daytime sky means NOTHING. The fact of the matter is there is a lesser light at night and a greater light during the day just as the Bible says.

8.“He made the stars also.” God spends a day making light (before making the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day’s work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars. 1:16

I suppose the author in his infinite wisdom knows how God sees time in comparison to us. Why don’t you get the authors email address for us all so he can explain to us mear mortals how God’s time works. I’m really curious to know since he seems to have all the answers.

I am not doing this for 40+ things I went through the first 8 and was able to either disprove or show that this guy is using illogical means to come to his conclusions.

There are plenty of books out there for anyone who is interested that disprove everything on this website and more. It’s the reason everytime a large real public debate occurs between religious scholars and secularists, the secularists never end up disproving the Bible.

Are you an evolutionist? If not what are your beliefs?

That was just a section of the website dedicated to supplying some strange facts within the Bible that do not seam very much in order and in tune with science. The rest of the site points out the obsurdity in the actions of God, and prove that if God is real, he is no more worth worshipping than your fellow man. God does some very distructive and inhumane things. Supposedly he knows all, so he determines right from wrong in a way in which we can never understand, but to me, I will not accept that I know nothing. That is why I believe we must move aroud religion in our philosophies and learn as much as we can, and not just sit back and accept that God is truly real.

Now if you are to claim your God has powers beyond all and can do things however he pleases, then I will accept a defeat.

However, the religious always use this example that we can not know why God does anything, and that God is subject to no laws.

Well that just makes it easy to disprove every skeptic out there. Obviously no one can argue with that, so what does that leave us with? An argument that apears to defeat every skeptic, when really, in my opinion, it just denies any skeptic an ability to use any rational thinking on the matter, causing many to just back down.

I think we should continue to look into this as far as we can before we accept defeat and believe in these religious stories.

But let me ask you something Fadingsoul. Do you believe god is all knowing?

It’s not about defeat or victory. You worship God through faith. Faith cannot be proven. The whole point I am trying to make here is the arrogance on this site shown toward the majority of religious people is uncalled for when as you just said, if God can do as he pleases it is automatic defeat. That doesn’t mean that the Muslim, or the Christian, or the Jew is an idiot, or that he/she is any less intelligent than any secularist on this board, or that he/she is incapable of going out on their own and understanding everything around them and making a choice based on the evidence infront of them to choose the religion they did.

I asked you a question before would you answer it please? Are you an evolutionist?

This mindless taunting does nothing for the debate. It only adds weight to the stereotype that fundamentalists are arrogant dogmatists who can’t argue their point and resort to intellectual bullying. You don’t want that label now do you? It sure is a poor example of Christ’s humility.

And for the record, I have a degree in philosophy. I’m not armed with anything, and I haven’t declared anything about God; I just happen to know a thing or two about philosophy, and I like discussing it in the context of civil debate.

I’m glad you don’t do this, but Bahnsen does. That was his main thesis in his debate with R.C. Sproul over apologetic methodology: presuppositionalism leads to certainty, while evidentialism leads only to probability.

Well I certainly hope you’re not comparing God with the wind here. It just so happens that we have very good methods for testing the presence of wind. You can feel it, you can measure its speed, you explain it in terms of scientific laws. Can’t say the same about God.

I think a reliable indicator of closed-mindedness is drawing sweeping generalizations–lumping all your opponents in one boat and then using a single standard to discredit them. Secular people are very diverse, FadingSoul, and to attack them as a monolithic group is highly disingenuous. I’m a secularist who does not consider religious people beneath me; in fact, I’ve written as much on this board. I think certain types of religious people (although certainly not all) are insecure in their faith, and feel the need to lash out at people who believe differently…just to make themselves feel more powerful. I have to say, you fit that stereotype quite well.

Again…this is a shameless generalization. You’re just treating the board as though it’s one big conspiracy to undermine your faith. There’s a diversity of opinions here, and if this offends you, then leave. (And really leave…don’t just say you will and keep coming back because you can’t bear to let us vile secularists have the final word.)

Wow. I think a truly thoughtful person would know not to make the sorts of generalizations you make. Thinking people argue their points, and have little need for the sorts of inane ad hominem attacks you constantly launch against those with differing opinions.

Now this is a claim you have to defend. I’m interested to see how well you can argue the presuppositionalist position on this…mostly because I used to argue it very vigorously myself. Have you heard any of Bahnsen’s debates? There is a very clever methodology to his trancendental argument for God’s existence (TAG). He, unlike you, understood that you can’t just make these claims; you have to argue for them. Of course, there are many problems with TAG, and I won’t hesitate to point them out. But to say that a belief in God is necessary in order to do philosophy is a very big claim–one you shouldn’t make unless you’re confident you can back it up.

FadingSoul

Real philosophy is all about living well. Every serious philosopher works alone studying the nature of his own soul and moral purpose and how best he might improve himself. That is the business of the true philosopher.

This same true philosopher, who enquires within, who looks into himself, who knows himself, regards externals as none of his business. He is free only to examine his own proper business. God figures in all this in that whatever does not properly belong to the interest of the philosopher he gladly hand over to the deity.

Some things are under our control and other things are not under our control. The atheists and secularists etc., and for that matter, every other person on this site, is not under our control, not within our power, not part of our proper business as prokoptoi.

Thus we come onto the site and remind ourselves, yes, phrygianslave, of course you will meet with conflicting opinion, rudeness, ignorance, foolishness, etc., when you log on to the site. Expect it and suffer it. There’s nothing you can do about it. But it does afford you an opportunity to observe or witness the variety and richness of human thought and knowledge. And even some of these characters one finds insufferable at first come to amuse one at last and one gets to know their faults and weaknesses and finds the strength somehow to forgive them, even to love them.

As usual I’m rambling! Don’t leave the site. Just give it time. Logo and the others are as they are but basically they’re all OK. We’re all in the same boat, the same cloud of unknowing. Its nice to have this little community of lost souls on the web. Groping together as it were!