Arguments for God's Existence

I have to say, I was a bit disappointed with today's lecture. The content was great, don't get me wrong, but it really wasn't what I was expecting. The first half was just more logic and argument stuff- which is great, but I was hoping for more actual arguments. He does go into one of those, but not until the second half.

A. How high should our standards be? 

Not too high. We shouldn't expect everyone to be convinced with our arguments.
Be prepared to meet people with overly high standards. Some people are biased to the point of ignorance.
When confronting those people, try asking, "What sort of argument will satisfy you then? What sort of evidence would you like me to provide?" And then tailor your argument from there.

No philosophical beliefs are based in perfect arguments. (That doesn't change that Christianity is right, it just means that no argument that we come up with will ever be perfect).

In law cases, we demand certain degrees of certainty.
Civil damage requires a different amount of evidence than a Capital crime. When it comes to apologetics, it's the same way. Certain topics require more "proving" or evidence than other issues. The existence of God is a pretty hefty topic, but remember, it doesn't need to be 100%. We're building a case, trying to reason with someone, not create a perfect argument.

B. Cumulative Arguments 

Many small arguments are better than a huge knock out argument by itself. It enhances the acceptability of a position. 

C. Deduction or Induction? 

1. Deductive: in reference to the existence of God, the premises refer to a finite being, and the conclusion jumps to an infinite being. (Remember back to my previous posts, Deductive reasoning has to do with being concrete, 100%, mathematical almost. As Nash said before, that sort of thing doesn't work here). 

2. Inductive: Building a cumulative case with premises, conclusions, and arguments allows you to put together a strong case. 

Antony Flew's Leaky Bucket Analogy: 

If one leaky bucket cannot hold water, ten won't be able to hold water either. If one fails at Deductive reasoning, the rest do as well. 

Richard Swinburne's Rebuttal:

If you arrange the buckets in such a way so that each bucket helps to stop up another one's hole, the thing as a whole can hold water. Each bucket supports one another- even though on their own, they cannot hold water. 

Same with inductive and deductive arguments. 

We do the same thing with law cases. 

For example: 

Smith has blood on his hands. 

He has motive to kill. 

He was seen at the scene of the crime right after TOD. 

Each on its own doesn't really help anything- but string them together, and it's pretty obvious that Smith's the perpetrator. 

D. Scientific Explanation VS. Personal Explanation 

Scientific Explanation: One that relies upon the laws of science. Pretty self explanatory. 

Personal Explanation: One that relies upon personal experiences (the senses). Refers to human reasoning, and action. Mind, Design, and Purpose. 

Example: 

You find a nail in your tire. No big deal. There's a scientific reason for it- you drove over it, and the laws of physics explain how it wound up releasing the air in your tire. 

Scenario 2: You find 20 nails in each tire, jammed all over in odd angles. Science doesn't really explain this. Personal experience says that it took an intelligent mind to stick all those nails there, for one bizarre reason or other. 

(This next thing is sort of random, Nash just throws it in here).  Referring back to yesterday's #1 argument-- you can substitute any eternal "idea". If its eternal and unchanging, and an idea, it must exist in an eternal and unchanging mind. 

E. Recent Advances in Science 

(This is the one argument for God's existence that Nash offers today)

1. Hugh Ross- Astrophysics

In the last 15 years, the content of Natural Theology has expanded exponentially. Why? Because of new technologies. Example: Hubble Telescope, and Kobe Satellite.  

2. Michael Bene- Microbiology 

Just as we've expanded out horizons to bigger things in the last decade, we've also been able to explore smaller and smaller things as well. 

Darwin didn't know about the cell. Without that tidbit of information, his evolution theory sort of works. But when you throw in the inner mechanics of a cell, it'd be pretty crazy NOT to see the hint of intelligent design. 

Cells use machines. They have rods and pulleys, highway systems, factories for making more chemical machines, and so and and so forth. There really isn't any scientific explanation for this. (Sure, you can say molecules interact in certain ways, or compounds are formed, or proteins collide, etc. But when it comes down to it, who made all that happen? How could a system that intricate just pop out of nowhere?! Answer- It couldn't). 

Two kinds of "Orders" 

a.  Natural Order

b. Intelligent Order

These are generally applied when observing something, and trying to decide if it points to intelligent design or not. 

The first explains things through science. (Pretty basic). The second one can't explain things with science, so it defaults to pointing to Intelligence. 

Example:
Sheep shaped rock from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. It's uncanny how life-like it is, but it's completely natural- not sculpted by human hands. Seeing that doesn't point to a Natural Order, it suggests something more- an Intelligent one. 

3. Information Systems

(Nash just explains this part with examples) 

Language- takes intelligence, a mind, design, thought, etc. My own example: If the guys on the moon saw sentences or runes written out on the surface of the moon, their probably not going with Darwin and assuming that it evolved to be that way. Most likely, their hightailing it back to earth, because stuff like that takes intelligent design. I think this analogy is the result of too many sci-fi movies. Oh well. 

On the train from Britain to Whales, there is a series of white rocks that have been placed to form the phrase, "Such and Such Train Station Welcomes you to Whales", or something like that. You'd have to be a fool to look out the window and say, "Oh, I bet they just fell like that". Of course not! There is certainty of intelligent design here. Therefore, you can draw a conclusion from knowing that it was "created" by an intelligent being-  the information must be true, or have credibility. If the rocks didn't just fall there, reasoning says that you must really be entering into Whales at that point, and not entering Timbuktu. 

To simplify that train of thought- If you believe something was created or formed intelligently, the information conveyed has purpose and meaning- and is generally true. 

So, for naturalists, when you apply this sequence of logic to the senses, technically, they shouldn't give any weight to what they experience through their senses. If their sense organs just happened to evolve, then the message is purely coincidental, and has to weight. If however, the sense organs were designed and graciously given to us by an intelligent creator- we can give credence to the information conveyed through them. 

Human Cell- living proof of intelligent design. If you can look at a grouping of rocks that spells a few words, and know that there was some sort of intelligent design, then the inner workings of a cell are exponentially more convincing. DNA in itself is a language, composed of letters, words, sentences, and paragraphs. It works just like our language does, perhaps better. Each word, each sentence has a purpose, and carries out a task. The words number enough to be a book, and quite literally, it is the story of who we are. A system as intricate as that is mocked by people who entertain the notion that it just "happened" to come about. 

A negative of this argument, as solid as it may be- it's really hard to summarize. Sometimes arguments take sitting down and going through. There really isn't a quick fix for someone looking to prove to existence of God. Granted, don't confuse simple with short. This argument isn't necessarily complicated, it's just that it takes a while to build a solid case for it. 

Lots of stuff today. Maybe not exactly what I was looking for, but useful nonetheless. 

I'd love to hear thoughts and comments. Thanks for reading. :) 

Existence of God: Background

Lots of important stuff today. This is the first of three posts about arguments for God's existence. Some of the points Nash makes seem to go in circles, but in all, he's got some good stuff to say.

All Proofs are person relative (A concept discovered by George Mavrodes)

BUT
1. Truth is not person relative.
2. Validity is not person relative.

Truth is a property of Propositions. Definition of a proposition: a use of language that communicates information.
Validity is a property of Argument. Definition of Argument: 2 or more propositions that are related in some way.

Example:
Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.  (All of these are propositions)
Socrates is mortal.

Put in the right sequence, they form an argument.

An argument is Valid if it satisfies the rules of logic.
An argument is Sound if its Valid, AND the propositions are true.

Example:
Tuna are mammals.
All mammals are warm blooded.
Tuna are warm blooded.

This argument is technically valid because the sequencing allows it to produce a conclusion- BUT, it is not Sound because two of the propositions (one of which doubles as the conclusion) are false.

Validity, Soundness, and Cogency are properties of Argument.
Definition of Cogent: An argument is cogent if it is Sound, Valid, and Persuasive.

Arguments are NOT person relative. Proof's are.
In order for an argument to become a Proof, someone must be persuaded.

Personally, I find fault in Nash saying that Arguments are not person relative. He implies that an argument becomes a proof if it is cogent- but then contradicts himself when he says that one is person relative, and one is not. Does that mean that a non-cogent argument is not person relative? and that a cogent one is? I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong. I think Nash has some sort of genius reasoning behind this, but so far I don't see it. In my book, an argument and a proof would both be person relative, because based on the premises, each person's conclusion could be different. Then again, maybe Nash is implying that in an argument, cogency is left out- only the truth and validity of an argument remain. Therefore, when an argument has cogency (a conclusion drawn from it), it becomes a proof, and also person relative. I suppose you could look at it either way.

So, Why are proofs person relative??

2 parts to a proof:
1. Logical
2. Persuasive

(Again, think Cogent).

Arguments are tools for building proofs.

(Its basically a pyramid. At the base are propositions. Put a few of those together to make an argument. Several arguments together make a proof. But, remember that an argument in itself can also be a proof. The part of the proof that can be relative is the conclusion).

Nash's point: Don't be discouraged when one tool in your tool box doesn't fix the problem. Some people won't respond to certain arguments. It can take several arguments before a person finds one that resonates with them personally.

An Example of a Proof for God's Existence:

Q: What is a number? Or more specifically, what is the number 1?

1. The number one is an idea or concept. It's an arbitrary metaphor to help us understand an immeasurable concept.
2. Ideas can only exist in minds. (You don't find them floating around like clouds...)
3. The number 1 is eternal. It has always been there, regardless of when we discovered it. It's the same with the idea of a circle. It's not like we came up with it, we just discovered it.
4. 1 is immutable. It can't, and won't ever change. If it did, it wouldn't be the number 1 anymore.
5. It must exist independently of human minds. 1 is eternal, and human minds are not, therefore, it exists outside of our minds.
6. There must exist an eternal and immutable mind....God.  If ideas can only exist in the mind, and 1 is an eternal idea, it must exist in an eternal mind.

No such thing as a perfect coercive proof that suits everyone. Why? Because proofs are person relative, and we're all different. We can each interpret the conclusion of a proof differently.

Another spiel:
Now comes some application. When it comes to arguments for God's existence, often sound and valid (true basically) proofs are shot down by non-believers. Yes, on a logical level it has to do with a difference in interpretation of the conclusion, but on a real-world level, the thing standing between them and the truth is sin. Ultimately, that's how we all were at one point. Blinded by our own sin, wallowing in our own selfishness, unable to see our God. If you're a believer, then you've overcome that by God's grace, but for non-believers, sin is still blocking the way. It's a worldview thing, and it's a heart thing. That's why even though this logic stuff is great, it still comes down to a person's heart, and being able to accept the truth before them.

More to come on the existence of God tomorrow. Stay tuned. :)

Natural Theology

So, after doing some looking ahead, I discovered that Nash does indeed have another section where he addresses arguments for the existence of God. This section is just about the rationality of the belief. Today was the last bit of this rational section. It's pretty much just a conclusion. Make sure to check out tomorrow's post- It should be more applicable as far as real world use goes.

Natural Theology- what is it?
Simplistic definition: An attempt to provide arguments for God's existence outside of scripture.

The pursuit of NT is a denial that the belief in God is a Basic belief.
(I don't know if Nash addresses this later in the series or something, but I kind of disagree. Further on in this lecture, he talks about the usefulness of NT, and I think that someone can pursue it in context. There's a difference between thinking that it must be done, and acknowledging it's usefulness. Nash words it a bit oddly- on one hand he paints it like it's a bad thing, and on another he shows the usefulness of it. Really, its all about knowing where the line is, and understanding its purpose. Useful, but not necessary).

This next part is short and sweet. (And sort of repetitive of what's in parentheses above).

A. Is it necessary (In order for the belief in God to be rational)?
No.  Two major reasons:
1. Epistemological
        - A substantial amount of people have come to faith without "proof"
        - Religious experiences are enough to bring a person to God, therefore, it is not necessary to have the proof.

2. Experiential
        - Personal stories (There's not much difference between this one and the above point. The main difference is that the above one would be numbers, and this one has to do with real people. For example, I'm guessing that if you're a believer, and you're reading this blog, there's a pretty good chance that you came to Christ based on something other than logical reasoning. Your personal story would be an example of Experiential evidence. I'm the same way. I came to faith because of a "religious experience" as Nash calls it. Therefore, my story also fits in this category. )

2. Is it useless (For helping to make a case for the rationality of the belief in God)?
No. (Nash's lecture refused to load at this point, so the stuff below is pretty much just me...)
Necessity and Usefulness are two different things. Just because it doesn't have to be there, that doesn't mean it isn't extremely helpful when dealing with non-believers. God has given us loads of proof for his existence beyond scripture. Nature, our minds, beauty, morality- all point toward the existence of God. Once we understand that it doesn't have to be there- it sort of becomes like the cherry on top. (or cherries more rather). Everywhere we turn around, God's fingerprint is present.

Tomorrow hopefully I'll get started on the section on the arguments for God's existence. Should be pretty interesting.

Foundationalism

This post is sort of similar to the one on Evidentialism (Mostly because of the similarities between the two beliefs). There's a LOT of stuff in here. It's not overly complicated, just really wordy. 

II.  Foundationalism

A.  Introduction

Is God's existence rational? 

Evidentialism + Foundationalism = Two major arguments against Existence of God. 

B.  Model of Human Knowledge- like a building with different levels. 

1.  Non-basic beliefs- ones that must be based in a Basic Belief. 

2.  Basic beliefs- ones that can stand on their own (base for non-basic). 

A foundationalist says that a belief is rational if and only if it is supported by a basic belief.  

C.  Two Kinds of Foundationalism

1.  Narrow (Wrong way)- says that there's only 3 kinds of Basic beliefs on which to base all other beliefs. 

a.  Self-evident- is not a logically self defeating idea. 

b.  Incorrigible- a logical proposition that must be accepted, but who's denial is not a logical contradiction. 

c.  Evident to the senses- can be experienced. 

2.  Broad (Right Way)- improves upon those three, but does not exclude them from the group. We simply add on. 

D.  Plantinga's Rebuttal of Narrow Foundationalism

1.  Logically self-defeating- The three criteria it holds cannot support the idea itself- therefore, it's not valid. (Basically, Foundationalism says that things have to be supported by a belief that can be proven, but there's no provable basic belief that can "Prove" Foundationalsim).  

2.  Cut off from many rational beliefs

If a belief has to be rooted in a basic belief that's Self evident, Incorrigible, or Evident to the senses, it cannot include the following: 

1. The External world. 

2. External Minds. 

3. Memories. 

(These are the same as the ones Nash mentioned with Evidentialism. You can't exactly "prove" these, but they definitely exist). 

POINT: All of this is laying the foundation for the punchline: The belief in God is a basic one. It's a presupposition we were all created with. It's truth, whether we can conjure up physical proof or not. (There is proof, but Nash's point is that even if there wasn't, it'd still be true). 

E.  Plantinga's Broad Foundationalism

1.  Many basic beliefs- to include the three above, but not limited to them. 

2.  Augustine and Calvin- If it is rational to belief in other minds, or memories without proof, it is also rational to believe in God. (Especially because we DO have proof. It may not be scientific or measurable, but with history or art, the signs are there- it's up to us to see them). 

3.  Accept propositions based on authority

To explain this one, Nash gives an example. A teenager who grows up in a Theistic environment, and comes to believe in Christ, came to believe because of a presupposition and Authority (Learning by example), rather than by logical proof. When you think about it, that'd be lots of people. You don't have to explain the defense against Theism to an 11 year-old for him to believe in Christ. At that age, kids look to parental figures for guidance, and often if parents follow Christ, so will their children. 

F.  The "Great Pumpkin" Objection

This comes from the Peanuts comic strip- Linus believes in the Great Pumpkin (Kind of like Santa, but for Halloween). 

1.  Belief in God is arbitrary. If you believe in God with no proof, anything can be believed with no proof- like the Great Pumpkin. 

2.  Plantinga - "All beliefs are not basic." Just because one goes, that doesn't mean they all do. Things take reasoning and common sense. And there are presuppositions- we were made with the ability to know God. 

3.  Plantinga is doing negative apologetics. He has other proof, but in this instance, they are making a positive claim, and he is simply providing reasonable doubt. 

4.  Real-world situation - worldviews. This really all comes down to the lens through which people view the world. This is about a clash between Theism and Naturalism. It all comes down to Christianity being the only worldview to measure up. 

Hopefully Nash goes into actual arguments for the existence of God tomorrow, instead of just rebuttals. Defense is great, but I'd like something to walk away with, so to speak. As far as application: This information comes in handy when you're dealing with someone who demands proof for the existence of God. It's not the positive part yet, just a defense, but it's a start. 

Ravi Zacharius: Think Again Post

Found this great blog post today by a man named Ravi Zacharius. (Thanks to Jonathan for recommending him to me). He's got a TON of cool stuff to offer. His website is full of Apologists and Scholars with libraries of articles and podcasts. If you'd like to check it out-- www.rzim.org. 

I was coasting through posts and found this one... http://www.rzim.org/just-thinking/think-again-4/. It's basically Ravi's thoughts on hope. Hope for individuals, hope for our generation, and hope for the world. He's pretty laid back, but has great stuff to say. 

The whole post is really in response to a college student who points out that the state of the world is rapidly declining. The student asks Ravi if he thinks there's hope.  Ravi's response is this: "As I travel the globe speaking and listening to so many voices, I am utterly convinced that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the only hope for our troubled world."  

As pain and hurt are magnified in this world, so is the healing power of Christ. As the bad gets worse, the good in Christ can only get better. The question then is, are we really pursuing hope? For those of us in these sorts of privileged situations (Pretty much all American believers), do we really care about spreading hope to those who have none? Or do we hoard it to ourselves? 

Zacharius also brings up Psalm 119: God's word is a lamp for our feet, a light on our path. Without him, we're in darkness. That light doesn't mean that the path is full of flowers and kumbayah- it just means that Jesus is with us through thick and thin. Whether rocky or smooth- he's showing us where we need to go. 

I find this post extremely applicable, mostly because in economics we've been talking about the national debt, and all that it entails as far as our country's well being goes. It's scary to think about where the world is headed. Bad stuff happens. Whether globally or close to home- there's no escaping it. It feels overwhelming sometimes. World hunger. National Debt. Slavery. Piracy. War. Famine. You name it. There's no quick fix to poof away the problems. Stuff like this seems impossible- and really, it is. As a whole, this stuff isn't going away. There's hope though- in Christ. Not to eliminate every last bit of it- but to spread an equally overwhelming dose of hope over these issues. Little things, big things, medium sized things- they all matter. As Christians, we're not called to get rid of these things by ourselves. We're called to share the love of Christ, and rely on the power of the Holy Spirit. The next time you feel a wave of helplessness coming on- don't forget- the God of the universe has us in the palm of his hand, and he's got stuff under control.

Evidentialism: Rationality of the Belief in God

Pretty good one today. Not as confusing as yesterday. Definitely some applicable stuff in here.
Just a note though: This may seem sort of nit-picky, and even common sense at times, but remember- Nash is trying to create an air tight case. He's explaining every little piece so that nothing is left to be questioned.

A. Irrationality vs. Rationality

The ultimate irrationality is to believe that one is God.
Non believers are trying to say that Christianity is irrational.

Evidentialism- says that it's immoral and irresponsible to believe anything without sufficient evidence. People use a bit of this when they say "No proof, No God".

How to go about responding to a thing like that...

First off, Alvin Plantinga vs. Antony Flew.
They had a major debate that started with a comment from Antony, "I will not accept a single thing you say, unless you prove that God exists".  Plantinga responded with, "I don't have to". They argued back and forth like that for a while (Pretty much like children do), until things really got moving. The reason for Plantinga's response has to do with the burden of proof. In this instance, it was Flew's burden, and he was trying to push it off onto Plantinga. If Plantinga had conceded that, then he would have been backed into a corner. Now, his response didn't mean that he had no answer, or even that he wasn't going to answer, just that he didn't have to, in order for his points to be valid. Besides just burden of proof though, Plantinga had another point. Flew was going off of Evidentialism. If there's no proof, there's no argument. Well, the way to defeat that would be, where the proof to support that statement? You see, statements that are "concrete" like that leave out reason and logic. They are logically self defeating.

B. Two Refutations of Evidentialism. 

First one is just the thing brought up in the paragraph on Plantinga. Show that it's logically self defeating.

Another way to shoot down Evidentialism
It goes against many foundational beliefs.
a. External minds. Technically there's no proof for them. What if there really are no other minds? Just ourselves? That's ridiculous. We know there are other minds. It's a presupposition we were given.
b. The Real World. No real "proof" for it. What if it's all in our heads? All imagination? Again, that's absurd. We were given a presupposition that says the world is real. This isn't the matrix.
c. Memories. How do we know they really happened? Again, how do we know we didn't just make them up? Because we know. We may not be able to prove it, but we know our memories are real.

So, If they ask for Proof for God, ask for proof for these things. That's one way to get their attention.

(Just a note: Nash isn't saying proof is bad. He's just pointing out that sometimes reason and common sense are what we need, not "proof".)

C. Evidence 

1. Propositional- an argument. (Logical Proof).
This kind of evidence isn't required for all situations. It can be very useful, but is not a necessity when it comes to some things. (ie. memories, real world, external minds, etc...)
Its a matter of having vs. needing.

2. Direct Experience- Sensory evidence. (When it comes to Apologetics, this really means Personal Testimony).
Relies heavily on "I feel..." statements. Examples, "I feel God calling me to this..." or "I felt God's presence in the room".
I think Nash also puts common sense into this category. Presuppositions. Sometimes we just know things.

A mini rant from me:
Personal stories can be hugely important when ministering to someone. Especially if there a person that's not interested in all this logic business. When it comes to personal stories, someone can't say "No, You didn't feel like that." They can disagree about why you felt the way you did, but they can't deny what your opinion is. When it comes to logic, someone can completely refute it, leaving you with relatively few options. Sometimes arguments over logic and little details can hinder people's want to become Christian. We're supposed to be love. Yes, giving a logical answer is important, but if we forget the cool stuff the Holy Spirit does in us, and in others, we've completely missed the point.

D. Reformed Epistemology 

Two parts:

1. Belief Forming Mechanisms (Basically presuppositions)
For example: causation.
Don't have to teach a child these things- they just know.

2. Triggering Conditions
Even if we have presuppositions, we need outside things (taken in by our senses- also God given) to trigger them.


Tomorrow is more on the rationality of the Belief in God. Stay tuned. :)

Objection (Continuation of Methodology)

This post is basically a continuation of the one before it (on methodology). Not my favorite lecture, but it was shorter than the first and a bit easier to keep track of.

E.J. Carnell- A student of Van Til's that disagreed with his philosophies.

Van Til rejected reasoning to the best explanation because it cuts us off from certainty. He thought God somehow "deserves" 100% certainty. (He basically turns the Bible into one big math book). What he's really doing is confusing the two kinds of certainty.
There's Logical Certainty, and Psychological Certainty.

Nash's words (Verbatim):
There is no Logical certainty in Apologetics. No logical certainty in this class. So what? There cannot be logical certainty in History, Apologetics, Philosophy, ect. In fact, the margin that logical certainty fits under is extremely small in comparison to the things it doesn't encompass. It only covers Math, Deductive Logic, and Geometry.

Psychological Certainty:
Relative from person to person. (Remember the world view lens?)
Can also be known as Moral Certainty.
Carnell's words (Verbatim): "The lack of logical certainty and relation to probability in Christianity is not a weakness. Instead it shows that Christianity is a world view trying to match up with actual History- not some abstract idea that came from a philosophers head. In the world of blood, sweat, and tears all there is, is moral certainty. It's about the real world."

My thoughts for a second:
In English we've been talking about metaphors (and how they apply to life in general). One of the biggest ones our teacher pointed out was math. All math is, is a metaphor. How do you measure something abstract? With a metaphor. A measurement is just an arbitrary distance that we made up to try and understand space or time. But neither of those things can ever really be measured or understood. What Nash and Carnell are saying here, is that Christianity isn't like 2+2. It's not some metaphor that we made up to understand the world. It's truth- and we know that. Not because its 100% concrete or can be proven with a theorem, but just because it is.

If a person claims to only do things by logical certainty- they're crazy. Presuppositions. There's no way to only have logical certainty. That's why Van Til is invalid.

A few more thoughts:
In this world, there are going to be people who claim that just because we can't "prove" it, we're wrong. We just need to hang in there. Reasoning is what's important. Make a case- lay out an argument- give your points. But- understand that not everyone will always listen. Sometimes people are mistaken. Whether it's because of Van-Tilian type thinking, or something else, there'll always be stubborn people. All we can do is present our argument and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.

Methodology

Warning: this one goes around in circles a bit. I literally had to re-listen to some of the things he said because I couldn't keep track enough to write them down. So, bear with me as I try to make sense of Nash's lecture.

I'm not even sure how to introduce this topic- other than just diving into what Nash says. It really doesn't have a main overall point (at least non that I can find). If you find a good way to squish this whole thing down into a condensed form, let me know.

Deductive Presuppositionalism

Gordon Clark:
Treated Christian Faith like Geometry.
Thought there only are two kinds of knowledge-

• Actual propositions revealed in Scripture
• Truths that we deduce from Scripture. 

Nash says here that he doesn't necessarily disagree with that, but that he feels like it's only part of the picture. (Basically he gets rid of the "only" part).
This sort of thinking is deductive presuppositionalism.

Here Nash talks about economic philosophies (Specifically the differences between his economic beliefs and a Man named Gary North's economic beliefs. ) It's sort of besides the point, so I won't really explain. If you really want to know- say so in the comment box.

Differences between Clark and Van Til (Two different school's of thought on Deductive Presuppositonalism)
Clark: necessary and essential laws (Basically, no relative truth). Humans can attain knowledge of God through General Revelations (Basically without direct reading of scripture, but rather through the Holy Spirit intervening).
Van Til: God created the Laws of Logic, therefore, there are no necessary truths (because those truths were "arbitrarily" made). Doesn't really take the time to defend the Law of Non-contradiction. Incomprehensibility  of God. (Even on the Basis of scripture).
Nash's point: They were really arguing over the relationship between God and Logic.

Nash (In reference to Clark's argument): Truth- some things can be true not because scripture says so, but just because they are. Some things are just true.

Inductive Pressupositionalism: 

1. Abductive (Nash's word)
Traditional Logic mixed with hypothetical syllogism. Two premises and a conclusion.

Valid forms of this sort of argument:
If A then B.
If not A, then not B.

Invalid Forms:
If A, then B- Therefore, If B, then A.
If A, then B- Therefore, If not B, then not A.

This concept is introduced in most Geometry classes, but Nash applies the concept to logical thinking in general.

Contradictions:
This form of reasoning is technically invalid- BUT, we use it for at least 4 major school's of thought.
1. Scientific investigation
2. Crime investigation
3. Explaining Historical Events
4. Interpreting Text
Tentative 5th- Nash's version of Apologetics.
It's not a panacea, but does have some valid uses. Context is really important.

Nash goes into examples, but they really don't help much. If anyone has examples they can think of that show how this sort of argument works, or is contradicted, feel free to comment.

India

So, not only did I forget my headphones Friday (no lecture), I also forgot Case For Christ (one of the books I'm reading for this class). Therefore- it was research day. I have to eventually pick a country to do my project on, and I figure that the sooner I decide- the better. This past week at church a man from India came and spoke (heads over 2,000 pastors and around 22 orphanages- ICC people, correct me if I'm wrong on those numbers). It was great. Extremely eye opening though. So, today is going to be a look at India. Just a hodgepodge of stats and info that I've found.

From Central Intelligence Agency- World Fact Book:



Population: 

1,205,073,612 (July 2012 est.)

Religions:
Hindu 80.5%, Muslim 13.4%, Christian 2.3%, Sikh 1.9%, other 1.8%, unspecified 0.1% (2001 census)

Languages: 
Hindi 41%, Bengali 8.1%, Telugu 7.2%, Marathi 7%, Tamil 5.9%, Urdu 5%, Gujarati 4.5%, Kannada 3.7%, Malayalam 3.2%, Oriya 3.2%, Punjabi 2.8%, Assamese 1.3%, Maithili 1.2%, other 5.9%

Physicians Density: 
0.599 physicians/1,000 population (2005)
(America has 2.672 per 1,000) 

Hospital Bed Density: 
0.9 beds/1,000 population (2005)
(America has 3.1 per 1,000 people)

HIV/AIDS:

2.4 million people (2009 est.)

country comparison to the world: 3

Literacy: 

definition: age 15 and over can read and write

total population: 61%

male: 73.4%

female: 47.8% (2001 census)

Children under the age of 5 years underweight: 

43.5% (2006)

country comparison to the world: 1
That stat really got me. India is number 1 in the world for Children under 5 that are underweight (Which is a huge indicator of it's Nutritional Status. 

Population below poverty line:
25% (2007 est.)
Maybe this doesn't sound like a huge number- but when you take 25 percent of 1,205,073,612, you get 301,268,403. Thats 300 million people below the poverty line. Ouch. 


Agriculture: 
rice, wheat, oilseed, cotton, jute, tea, sugarcane, lentils, onions, potatoes; dairy products, sheep, goats, poultry; fish

Industries: 
textiles, chemicals, food processing, steel, transportation equipment, cement, mining, petroleum, machinery, software, pharmaceuticals

I found this stat particularly interesting: 

Refugees and internally displaced persons: 

refugees (country of origin): 100,003 (Tibet/China); 69,998 (Sri Lanka); 9,094 (Afghanistan)

IDPs: at least 506,000 (about half are Kashmiri Pandits from Jammu and Kashmir) (2012)

This next stuff is from Mission India.org: 

I LOVE this link. It basically just explains "Why India?". Why support it, send missionaries to it, help it out. Instead of just copying all the stuff, I'm gonna put the link. Please check it out. 

http://www.missionindia.org/about/whyIndia

Main points- ("Why support missions in India?")
Because India is Hurting...
Because India is seeking...
Because India is Where God is at Work...

I also checked out their statement of faith- great stuff. (http://www.missionindia.org/about/StatementofFaith)
Something I noticed though- this particular website doesn't have anything in their ministries page about medical outreach. They're probly apart of some sort of medical mission work there, but I would have LOVED to see it on their page. I'll have to do some more research into that. (For those of you who don't know- I really want to be a doctor, with an emphasis in missions work.)

Found this video. Almost in tears. Please, take the time to watch it. It's not a guilt video. It's something that opens eyes- and helps us to see. This world is full of hurt and paint. And whats more? We're called to do something about it. It doesn't have to be in India. Not all of us are called to overseas missions- but we are all called to mission work. Let me ask you this, (A question I've asked myself almost daily since my first missions trip to New Orleans), If we don't share Christ, who will? We're all called to be fishers of men.  http://www.missionindia.org/ministries

Every time I look at these sorts of sites, my heart breaks. I want to jump on a plane and fly to India. Like- right now. Obviously, that's not going to happen. But that's how I feel. I really am excited for the second half of this class though. Learning apologetic stuff has been great, but especially after a day of reseraching India, I'm ready for some application. This is starting to look like my project country (Who knows, I might end up changing my mind. For now though, India's looking like a good canidate).

Something interesting though- I had always thought that the country I would pick would be from Africa. I'm absolutely in love with African cultures, and I suppose those were the countries I was most familiar with. My family also sponsors two children from Africa through World Vision, and Compassion. I still have a heart for Africa, but India's been tugging at me as well. We'll see. Both are really great options for an end of semester project.

Noetic Structure

Listened to this one on Monday. Great stuff. This one has a lot of fundamentals in it that can be applied to a range of different situations. It's a good one to read if you're looking for some basic apologetic stuff. (If something doesn't make sense though, it's either me screwing up the explanation or referring to something in a previous lecture).

Definition of Noetic structure:
The sum total of everything a person believes, plus the relationship between those beliefs.
This includes:

• Past beliefs
• Memories 
• Feelings
• Logical connections between memories and beliefs
• Causal and Psychological Relations 

Presuppositions 

Definition: a belief that we hold without proof or support. 

• They build on each other- like Legos. 
• Not all presuppositions are untrue. In fact- some are God given, and crucial to decision making. Ie. The Christian belief in God. Not all Christians have the knowledge to logically back it up, but it's at the core of their beliefs. 
• St. Augustine- "No one can know anything unless he already knows something". 
• We all have presuppositions, and whats more, we need them. 
• They are non-theological foundations to theological thought. 

Cognitive Propositions- either true or false. (Think knowledge type things). 

Some presuppositions are not Cognitive though--Unable to be verbalized. Moods, attitudes or feelings. 

For example: History. An account of the Civil war from the KKK's perspective is going to be completely different from the Union's version.  Holocaust- Germany vs. US. Etc. 

When it comes to intellectual matters, Humans are hard pressed not to be biased- we all are shaped by things, and react to things accordingly. 

Something interesting that Nash mentions: Just because we're aware of this bias doesn't necessarily mean we can just get rid of it. We're talking a lifetime of shaping. We can be aware, and try not to be biased, but ultimately- we need a solid road map to tell us where to go (Scripture). 

Another example: Interpreting text. I could read a Charles Dickens novel and get something completely different out of it than if say, my grandpa were to read it. We grew up in different times, different places, and the way we view things has been changed by that. 

Logical Conclusion as it applies to Apologetics: 

When you're trying to minister to people, and explain this kind of stuff- you're going to run into presuppositions that'll give you grief. Like I said, its hard to change a lifetime of "shaping". Presuppositions make things complicated. Emotions and feelings turn logical arguments into personal ordeals that have to be approached with a LOT of discernment. It's about winning people over for Christ... not beating them to death with your wonderful logical argument. (I'm defiantly at fault here too. Sometimes I want so bad for people to know the God I know, that I get caught up in trying to make them believe. It's not that simple). 

Solution: The Holy Spirit. 

The HS is imperative to evangelism. Without the HS, evangelism doesn't exist. He's the one doing the work in people's hearts. All we do is knock on the door, provide information, and encourage. He's the one transforming lives and really winning those people over. So, if you ever get someone to agree with you because of some great argument you had, don't be quick to pat yourself on the back. It's God doing the work. We're just his servants, carrying out his will. 

Epistemology and Reformed Epistemology 

Nash gave this part a theme song. I thought that was funny. ^.^  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjN5_cJDWHs. Its the theme from "The High and the Mighty"- a John Wayne thing. Enjoy. 

Before I continue: Definition of Epistemology from Google: The theory of knowledge, esp. with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. 

Nash insinuates that unreformed epistemology is congruent with Empiricism, in that it agrees with the belief of "Clean Slate" children (Basically that babies minds are clean slates, and that as they grow and take in information, they make conclusions off of that data). This belief is false. Some human knowledge does not arise from sense experience. Knowledge by sense is only possible because we bring ideas and dispositions to the table. This concept holds true in infants as well. (I would definatly agree. It helps to explain things like morals, love, hope, faith. Stuff like that. Without a God who has intelligently created us to do these things, how in the world  could we come up with them on our own?) 

A priori Truth (pronounced "ay", not "uh")- necessary truth. For example, the Law of Non-contradiction. It precedes experience. 

So, How do we account for Human possession of A priori? 
Virtue of our creation by God. God gave us a priori. We're not blank slates, God gives us a base. (Created in his image. Example: We're created with a God shaped "hole" in our hearts- a space that only God can satisfy. We're also made to absorb information about God). 

Thomas Reed- Scottish Philosopher. (This is completely random and besides the point- I like the fact that he's Scottish. Maybe I'm just tired of Nash mentioning Greek philosophers. Hmm). Reed believes that we all have "belief dispositions". 

Triggering Conditions and Belief Dispositions are the two ways we explain human knowledge. 
Example of this: Nash claps his hands, and asks the audience what caused it. Of course, his audience said that the clap was the cause of the sound. We are hardwired with a fundamental understanding of Causation. Things happening can cause other things to happen. Without that presupposition, making cause and effect assumptions would be impossible. 

Now, most of the time these aren't apparent in infants. They are Implicit. However- they're still there. And, as a baby matures, those presuppositions become explicit. 

Alvin Plantinga, who is a Reformed theologian, believes God has planted an ability to belief God exists. A sixth 'sense' to feel him. (I really love this illustration. It helps account for those people that are "un-reached". God hard wired us to be able to feel his presence. Woah). 

Touchstone propositions: one sentence explanations for these big world views. 
Christianity's touchstone proposition:  Human beings and the Universe are the creation of the God who has revealed himself in scripture. 
One advantage of this proposition is the wording. Because we include the scripture part- everything in scripture is included. God and scripture cannot be separated. 

Jam packed- but good stuff. Tomorrow's lecture will be more on Worldviews. 

Divine Omnipotence

Listened to this lecture on Friday- just now getting to posting the blog about it. Its just as jam packed as the Intro version. Lots of stuff. Today Nash offers an answer to The Problem of Evil. It's to the point- so not completely sufficient. But- its a start. Obviously as people come up with more branches of argument for this, we'll have to come up with more defense. As of now though, Nash does a good job of coverign the basics. (Again, I'm going to try and put my thoughts in parentheses. So- if you see something funky and its outside the parentheses- It's probly Nash). 

Important things that Nash mentions early in the lecture:

There are some things God cannot do, because they contradict with his character. 

So, knowing that God is all powerful, does the term "Divine Omnipotence" mean God can do anything? No. 

For example: 

He cannot lie. 

He cannot swear by a being greater than himself. 

He cannot break the law of non-contradiction. 

Once an event has happened, he cannot bring about that it didn't happen. (Basically- God can't tamper with the past, and change things that have happened.) 

An important question: What if we don't know God's plan, and the evil he allows takes the place of a greater evil? Or what if preventing that evil leads to a lesser good? (Messes with his plan). 

Christian Basic Assumption About Evil 

God created a world with evil, and has a good reason for doing so. (Who are we, tiny fragile beings, to question the motives of the Creator of the Universe? There's a big difference between understanding the finer details and thinking that as humans we're "owed" any sort answers from God. He gives us information and understanding because he loves us, not because we deserve it.) 

So, when bad things happen, instead of asking "How could God have let that happen?", we can say, "What if God's got a good reason for this, and I just don't get it?"  See the difference? The second opens a floodgate of opportunity. Just because we don't hold the secrets of the universe doesn't mean there isn't a reason, just that we don't have it.

Not all bad things happen without a reason. Revelation- the end of the world-  is revealed in scripture. God's warning us about it in advance (So we can be prepared). 

Another important premise- Evil is not eternal. There was a point when evil had not entered existence yet. (Nash didn't say anything about the future of evil. I'm curious about his views on that. If anyone has something to add to this bit- feel free). 

HOW???? 

Question: How can God and Evil exist simultaneously?? 

Well.... here are some possibilities. 

1. Augustine-- major Christian philosopher. 

Theory goes like this: (Verbatim Nash's words)

When God created good, things had (Well, still have) degrees of good. A rock is good because God created it, but Man has a higher "degree" of good, because of the level of himself that God put into us (We're made in his image). Keep in mind, there's also free-will here. All of a sudden, one of God's creatures decides he wants to upset the "levels" of goodness, and put himself above God (That'd be Satan, aka- Lucifer). Lucifer went against God's plan- against his character per say- and therefore, had to be separated from God. (God is good, and the absence of Good is evil. Therefore, when Satan was separated from God, a "hole" in the universe sort of opened up and became the "absence of God"). Then of course came the fall of Man- where man made the same decision, and got booted out of the Garden of Evil. 

 (Please keep in mind, this argument may seem over simplified- but if you're dealing with people that have different worldviews, the simpler the logic, the harder it is to find holes. You're building a case, and if you try and run with some complicated "Jump to conclusions" explanation- the person you're trying to convince is more likely to find holes and discredit you. Baby steps.) 

Something Nash takes the time to point out here that I think is important as well: (Prepare for a bit of a rant...)We choose this path every day that we sin (Which'd be every day). We're humans. We screw up- think we're big/tough, and upset the order of things. Basically- we choose evil. We choose the path Satan took hundreds of millions of years ago. That's why we deserve such a harsh punishment- because we're messing with the God of the universe. Thank the Lord (yes, pun intended) for forgiveness. Because, pardon my french, without forgiveness- we'd be screwed (We'd be in Hell). Harsh? Yes. True? Yes. BUT- That's why this is so important. Don't forget that when you fight to defend the logic of the gospel, someone's soul is possibly at stake. 

Enough ranting. 

Back to Augustine. The one hole in his argument is this: Where did Satan get the idea to mess up the order in the first place?? Well, just like Nash said before- we're human, and cannot possibly explain every bunny trail question that pops up. This is one of those that he chooses to leave unanswered. (If you've got an answer, feel free to comment). 

2. God permits evil to prevent a greater evil, or to cause a greater good. 

If we get rid of our worldview, what do we have left? It's the basis for what we believe. ( In this case, several premises have to precede this conclusion. Firstly, God knows better than us. Believe it or not, you'll run into people who think that they know better than God. Quite often actually. They say things like, "When I get to heaven, I'm gonna chew him out for 9-11. Ask him why my dog died. Tell him spiders would have been better off NOT on the ark. Etc...".  Therefore- second premise: Just because we don't know about it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Radical- I know. But seriously- We don't have to know everything- and that's crucial when explaining this argument to a non-believer. Not all questions can be answered. ) 

Final Considerations 

1. The burden of proof is on the non-believer. 

This. Is. Crucial. This is negative apologetics- All we have to do is play defense, and show reasonable doubt as to why their argument might not be true. You don't have to 100% prove it false. You're hurting yourself if you try to assume responsibility for the entire argument. 

So, does that put us in a stalemate? Maybe. But stalemate is a definite improvement upon where we started- without any defense against the argument of evil. All it takes is a mustard seed. Possibility. 

Something ironic about this argument (if, and only if, it's being argued by a Naturalist): 

If a naturalist tries to argue The problem of evil, technically- he's cheating. In a naturalistic worldview- there is no good or evil. There is not God to create such things. Everything just is. 

Huge Question that Nash poses at this point in the lecture: 

Are there worse things than dying? 

His overall answer: absolutely. 

2 peices of scripture: 

1. Romans 8:28 - And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.  

Notice Paul says here: "For those who love him". Scary thought huh. All things work for Good for those who love God. Another thing- notice that Paul doesn't mention when. There's an implied "eventually" here. It's not always in this life- but God does promise that no matter what sort of crap you go through on earth, If you love him, he's got your back.  But that's why Death leaves such a bad taste in our mouths. For non-believers, there is no hope in the afterlife. 

2. Romans 8:18

I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 

This is just elaborating on the point above. The day is coming when we will see and understand, if only just a bit. Jesus outweighs all suffering. The absence of God outweighs all mortal evils. This is fundamental, and really, it's at the core of what Christianity really is. 

Nothing is worse that being without God (Which essentially is hell). That includes death. (Toby Mac song- What good is it to gain the whole world and lose your soul? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8du_xWWt8E ) 

Sooo, ya. Like I said- a lot of stuff. Good stuff though. Next time'll be on world views. Stick around, more interesting apologetic stuff to come. :) 

 

Problem of Evil: Intro

The lecture today was jam-packed, just like yesterday. So, naturally, I have a lot to say. It was a good one though. I'm going to be putting the basis of Nash's stuff down, and then adding in my thoughts and comments in parentheses. Just so it's clear who's really talking.

(Something interested Nash mentioned about this post-- it was taped September 18th, 2001... Just a week after 9-11.)

Nash admits- this lecture isn't the actual "answer" to the problem of evil. It's meant to be an introduction on the topic. He even points out that there really isn't a completely satisfactory answer on this argument- it's really a process (learning the pieces of the argument and how to break it down).

Something else that's sort of important to know: all Nash is referring to when he talks about "The Problem of Evil" is the contradiction between our God and the existence of Evil. This argument just says that if there is a God that is all good, he and evil cannot co-exist.

Three Problems: 

Deductive Problem of Evil-

• This argument is sufficient to undermine the entire Christian faith, and has done so for hundreds of years. (It might seem a bit over the top to claim that this argument is that potent, but even in my two high-school years, I've seen people back up their non-belief with the question, "How can I believe in a God who lets things like the Holocaust happen?"  Honestly, I really don't have a sound argument to defeat this with. Obviously I can express God's love, and try to explain that the absence of good is evil...etc. But sometimes people need a better logical explanation to help them break down the walls of their world view. That's part of the reason I'm super excited for this chunk of the lectures. It'll be nice to have some sort of well thought out logical argument behind me on this one.)  
• Therefore- its crucial that we learn how to defeat it. 
• Alvin Plantinga- major Christian philosopher, came up with the argument that defeats the problem of evil. (Side note: Plantinga's attack on this problem doesn't come in this lecture. I've researched it a bit, and I'll try to elaborate more at the end.)
• The day is coming when we will come in contact with this problem and need some sort of an explanation. 

Inductive Problem of Evil-

• Without any attack at all, this argument stands 100% against Christianity. 
• Our job is not to prove 100% against it, just to poke holes sufficiently in the argument so that our side again looks probable. Some people will not believe- no matter how much reasoning you give them. Undermining their position is the key to getting them to see the credibility of our position. 

The Gratuitous Problem of Evil- 

• Evil has no redeeming value. (What Nash means here is that some argue that evil can never be used for a "good" purpose. Obviously Christians believe that God uses instances of evil for his perfect will, but if you take on this particular world lens, evil and God cannot co-exist, and therefore no evil can ever amount to any good. People exemplify this when they try and find the reason for bad things happening.  Sometimes none is apparent, and their logical assumption is that there isn't any good capable of being produced from the situation- rather than the possibility of them just not being able to understand it's meaning). 
• Examples: Children with terminal cancer, 9-11, hurricanes. 

Popular Presentation

Objectives- 

• To present a good example of Apologetics at work against one of the most popular and toughest intellecual challenges against Christianity. 
• Knock the problem down into peices that are better to handle- instead of trying to assalut it all at once. (Nash compares this argument to an 800 pound gorilla. You wouldn't go at it alone, or all at once.) 

Naturalists and The Problem of Goodness- 

• If the problem of Evil is bad for believers, the "problem" of Goodness is an issue for Naturalists (non-beleivers).  How could morals or goodness exist without a God to implement them? What about real, genuine beauty? Agape love? Those in themselves defy closed box theology.
• Problem exists because of the essential attributes of God. (These are what evil contradicts with). 
• God is all powerful.
• God is all knowing. 
• God is all good. 
• Logical implications of that...
• God has the power to stop evil. 
• God knows everything, and could therefore prevent evil if he wished. 
• God is all good, and therefore cannot allow evil to happen. 
• (Again, I just want to point out, the above stuff is the "Problem of Evil" argument, NOT what I'm saying. Nash is just establishing the argument really well, so that we can knock it down really well. Keep that in mind.) 

Important Distinctions-

• Theoretical vs. Personal. (There is a HUGE difference between knowing there's evil in the world, and experiencing it. For example, we hear about car crashes on the news all the time, but things change when a family member tragically dies in one.) 
• Evil in General VS. Specific instances (Again, sort of goes with theoretical vs. personal. It is a bit different though. Its the difference between knowing that bad things happen, and knowing that a bad thing happened. )
• Moral vs. Natural 
• Moral- human decisions that lead to consequences. 
• Natural- seemingly comes out of nowhere. (Earthquakes, tornadoes, cancer, etc.)

Honestly, I was kind of dissapointed that Nash only gave 1 small piece of reason against this argument. Hopefully he really gets going on showing how to poke holes in this argument in the next lecture. For now though, I feel like he did a good job explaining the problem (even if he didn't get around to the fixing part...). Stay tuned for part two. :) 

ps. Alvin Plantinga. I found one link that’s insane (It’s a Stanford Encyclopedia-- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/) and another link that dumbs it way down- http://www.conversantlife.com/theology/the-problem-of-evil-solved-thank-you-alvin-plantinga.