News: “Biblical Worldview Consistent and Scientifically Confirmed!” ~ @GospelToday
Beyond Doubt – Christianity is True – Atheism is False
I have the Biblical worldview as my worldview because it has been, is and always will be rational, logical, non-contradictory, consistent and scientifically confirmed because it is based on absolute truth within the perfect love of God through His only begotten Son, Christ Jesus. ~ @GospelToday
The Atheist Worldview
Over the past year plus, I’ve been researching the worldview of Atheists. I’ve directly asked a number of them questions and have received a lot of answers from the atheists I’ve asked and from atheists who volunteered their answers to me without me asking them. I’ve also read a number of atheist blogs and a number of books and articles written by atheists and have found that in general the answers I received from my direct questions including those answers given to me by those atheists I didn’t directly ask correlate to the statements on the atheist blogs, books and articles I have read.
This Article’s Purpose
A few months ago I wrote the article At times I doubt yet Absolute Truth is always Absolute Truthin which I stated that; I am not willing to admit that I might be wrong in placing my faith in Christ Jesus because I am right in placing my faith in Christ Jesus and that He exists and He is God. In that article I also said that I reject other beliefs (religions such as Atheism, Hinduism, Buddha, Islam, etc.) because I did the honest and true actual deep down heart searched from my soul search to find the absolute truth because I wanted to know the absolute truth and these other beliefs failed the test. In that article too I said that I have found absolute truth so why would I give it up? Why would anyone finding absolute truth give it up for lies?
Since I wrote that article I’ve had many atheists tell me that my faith in Christ Jesus, my Biblical worldview, is not logical and that the beliefs I have are made up of myths and fables mixed in with irrational thinking which goes against science and logical thinking. These atheists hold that their worldview is rational and is based on science, reason and logic where my worldview is not rational, against science and is based on blind faith. Some of these atheists pointed me to links to learn more about their religion of Atheism’s worldview so that I gain more information about their religion of Atheism which I used in part from my reading them to write this article.
Most of the atheists I have encountered say that I am insane because I profess to them that I have a strong faith in Christ Jesus as my savior. These atheist think that faith is a persuasion of the mind to believe in things which are not real or true and that strong faith is to believe in things which you know are for sure are not true yet you believe in them anyway. This article is to present to you and these atheists that my strong faith in Christ Jesus as my savior is founded in the real truth and that there are valid reasons and strong scientifically conclusive evidence confirming the reasons for which I have chosen to place my faith into Christ Jesus as my savior.
This article is to further defend my Biblical worldview stance and my faith in Christ Jesus as being a worldview not only right for me but that having faith in Christ Jesus as our God, our savior being the only begotten Son of God being born of a virgin who lived a perfect life as a man on earth yet was wrongly accused and was punished then put to death on a cross then physically rose from death through which Jesus overcame death for not only Himself but for everyone who places their faith into Him as their savior overcomes death; is the only rational, logical, and scientifically founded worldview there is.
Comments welcome!
Filed under: Atheism, Christiods, Intolerance
Where to start….
"In that article I also said that I reject other beliefs (religions such as Atheism, Hinduism, Buddha, Islam, etc.) because I did the honest and true actual deep down heart searched from my soul search to find the absolute truth because I wanted to know the absolute truth and these other beliefs failed the test." – @GospelToday
"Because it cannot be tested in a laboratory, origins science is weaker than observational science." – @GospelToday
Setting aside the matter of @GospelToday redefining science into two categories in order to set up a straw-man on which he will toss his holy water for the remainder of the blog post, I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that somehow we should discount "origin science" due to its inability to "be tested in a laboratory" yet we should simply trust @GospelToday's undocumented procedure for "the honest and true actual deep down heart searched from my soul search to find the absolute truth" as the basis for the validity of his religion and bible. A validity he proudly proclaims as the logical trump card for all world views in which atheism bitterly loses. Forget the fact that thousands of scientists have spend countless years using the scientific method to discover and formulate scientific theory that is scrutinized to the nth degree by peers, some even religious peers. We should listen to a man who apparently sat in a room and searched his own soul with some proprietary method which cannot be observed.
I will admit I had a hard time reading more than 20% of this post. I skimmed, mostly due to the belligerent arrogance displayed in @GospelToday's premise. In true Christian soldier nature he has managed to discount the entire study of science in a single blog post without offering any thoughtful alternative other than some good ole fashioned soul searching and a good ole bible.
Part 1
There’s definitely a lot to digest in @GospelToday’s blog, as he/she has certainly put a lot of thought and effort into his/her dissertation. My own conclusion is that @GT’s lengthy diatribe did nothing to prove that Christianity (and in particular his/her own interpretation of the religion) is the only way to live, or that it’s based on science and logic, because it is not.
Part 2
First, his/her attempt to define ‘worldview’, while correct, is not complete. @GT insinuates that there are essentially 2 worldviews: the Biblical (@GT’s term) and Atheist. In fact, neither are worldviews. While I agree that they are diametrically opposed, Christianity and Atheism are only ONE PART of any particular worldview. Both Christianity and Atheism attempt to answer theological questions, and theology is only one component of one’s worldview. To that end there are probably elements of my worldview and @GT’s world view that are in common. @GT makes a very serious error in describing Christianity and Atheism as worldviews, and this doesn’t even delve into the fact that even under the Christian umbrella, there are numerous disagreements and differing points-of-view about many of life’s challenging philosophical questions. My question is, if the Biblical ‘worldview’ is the correct one, then whose interpretation am I to follow, @GT’s, my Jewish cousin’s, my Catholic friend’s, the Mormon that I work with, etc?
Part 3
Second, in a strange and condescending tone, @GT throws at us a number of definitions including assumption, believe, suppose, and more importantly, faith. One aspect of the definition of faith that @GT forgot is that faith is “belief without proof”. @GT admits his/her faith in god and his only begotten son… And this has always been my contention; belief in God rests on faith and faith alone (I don’t use the term ‘blind faith’ as I believe that’s being redundant). There is no proof that God exist, yet I find that Christians like @GT cannot and will not admit that their theological assertions have no proof. And this brings me to my third point…
Part 4
@GT goes to some lengths describing events in the bible that have been scientifically confirmed. My answer to that is: so what? It still doesn’t mean that your God exists and is the only true and one God. In another life I took a biblical archaeology class (and I do not claim to be an expert in the field) where we used the bible as a reference book to supplement our learning about the cultural and political history of the Levant. To say that the because the bible contains historically (semi)accurate accounts as proof of the existence of God is akin to me saying that because Troy actually existed and there were wars between the Spartans and the Trojans that we should be offering sacrifices to Zeus et al. It is a fallacy often repeated by Christian apologists.
Part 5
So in conclusion, I must say: a valiant attempt @GT, but your conclusion are not supported by the evidence you’ve provided – and admittedly I didn’t touch on all the points you made(like ipversion 1, I had a hard time reading through your blog – not because it was intellectually challenging but because it was poorly reasoned). You made numerous assumptions based on your belief system (i.e. your worldview) and one that’s based on faith in what you believe the bible to be, nothing more, nothing less. I think you admit this in your dissertation, but I’m not too sure because your definition of worldview doesn’t seem to coincide with your unwavering devotion to the Christian religion. Many of your statements suggest that all worldviews but yours are wrong. However, you seem to understand that one’s particular worldview is shaped by one’s cultural history, so doesn’t it stand to reason that your Christian faith was shaped by the cultural historical developments of western society for the past 5000 years?
Part 6
And regarding your baseless assumptions about atheism, despite your claim of conducting thorough research, they disingenuous at best as you’ve concluded that atheist cannot prove what they believe in. Atheism is a lack of belief in any supernatural creator or being, or any supernatural explanation for phenomena. One cannot prove the non-existence of something, so how can I prove that your god doesn’t exist? Show me any shred of evidence that your god exists (other than your own heartfelt assumptions) and I’ll gladly listen.
The description I gave as the Biblical worldview within the article is the correct one.
Belief in God does not rest on faith alone.
You would do well to read it all and not just skim. You may learn something reading it fully.
The items I noted within the article show confirmation of the Holy Bible being correct in what it says in the areas noted. Note that I didn't say that science gave absolute proof of God's existence however scientifically, the Holy Bible has not been disproved.
There is science which can be tested in a laboratory and there is science which cannot be tested in a laboratory as that of origin where someone cannot recreate it in a lab. Can you or anyone you know of recreate the sun, moon, stars, etc.? What about recreate the first life in a lab?
Scientific methods steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. You cannot do this with origins science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
I did not and will not state that following Christ Jesus is the only way to live because there is a choice to not follow Christ Jesus too.
Also, with the Holy Bible scientifically confirmed in so many ways and not having ever been proven wrong, gives stronger reasons for my faith in Christ Jesus.
You make numerous assumptions in your worldview which are also shaped by your cultural history and historical developments of western society. The major difference between your assumptions and mine are that mine are based on the Holy Bible which is scientifically confirmed over and over again as we learn more about the universe, life and everything else where there is no foundation for logical and rational thinking with the atheist worldview because via abiogenesis causing life through random chemical reactions logic and rational thought couldn't come about… while rational and logical thought is consistant with the Holy Bible.
How could random chemical reactions and great big whooping cranes create rational and logical explanations and proof of what they believe in?
Richard Dawkins attribute his main conclusion to, luck. Yes, that’s right he ascribes it all too “sheer luck” on page 168 in his deluded book. Even more so he goes on page 169 that more “major infusions of luck” are needed to really fill in the gaps.
The Richard Dawkins Delusion (Part 4) – God Yes, Cranes No http://bit.ly/aj0sLj
You are creating a false dichotomy by using your phrases "laboratory" and "origins" science. You then falsely claim that any field of science that deals with the topics of the origin of life and the origin of the universe cannot produce verifiable experiments in a lab. This is also patently false. You conveniently fall back on your tired argument that certain things have not been tested nor can we currently conceive of the way to test so therefore it's untestable. Your premise and your conclusion are extremely flawed.
I find it interesting that in your crusade to prove the existence and moral law of your "god" your strategy involves bashing science for developing theories in areas where things are in your mind "untestable". Given that your religious beliefs are completely untestable, you are doing one of two things: putting your religious beliefs on equal ground with scientific theories you consider untestable or dismissing your own beliefs as nonsense because they are also untestable. In the case of the latter you are arguing for no reason. In the case of the former you haven't provided a rational thought as to why we should accept your religious beliefs over scientific research other than "do some deep down soul searching".
Oh yeah? How did it do that? Recreate the resurrection in a lab?
I love how you cherry pick science to back up your crazy ideas whenever it's convenient and then toss it aside when it's not convenient for you. Keep on preaching, Reverend!!
ipversion1, I strongly suggest that you read the whole article before you continue to make comments about it. You are making yourself out to be foolish because you've not fully read the article.
I'd rather not waste my time.
Your apathy to learning the truth is your choice to make. I suggest that you take hold of your life and not waste it with myth and lies however it is your life and your personal choice to make. My prayer for you is for your salvation.
Thanks, but I already made a decision not to waste my life when I decided not to read your worthless blog.
Why is it that you don't read what it says yet you are compelled to comment on it without knowing what it says?
What dichotomy are you using when you use logic and reasoning? If we all came about per abiogenesis what says there is any logic and reasoning? To that extent, if abiogenesis is fact and God is not, why would it matter to anyone if someone lied, cheated, stole, murdered, etc.? If abiogenesis is fact then morality would be a personal choice made for someone's survival.
Does it describe a lab experiment using the scientific method that re-creates the resurrection? If not I don't care to read it.
Logic and reason are distinct but are not a dichotomy. Logic is a component of reasoning.
This is why I don't read what you write – you can't get through one sentence and make sense.
As for the rest of your comment we have beaten this dead horse for months now. We develop our own set of moral standards as a society. What was considered immoral 1500 years ago is OK by today's standards (save for a few fundamental conservatives). Homosexuals that would have been stoned years ago now have their own radio and television shows. Society at large (minus the fringe fundamentalists) accept this as morally OK.
Still not clear why you insist on discussing abiogenesis and morality in the same comment. These two things are not related at all.
How can you be a thinking person using science and believe in abiogenesis and Darwinism? There can be no rational and logical thinking if we came from abiogenesis and Darwinism because it all requires randomness and from randomness logic and reason cannot occur. For you to use science, logic and reason, you are stealing from the teachings taught within the Holy Bible which is scientifically confirmed and has never been proven incorrect.
For your definition of morality, anything goes if you get enough people to go along with you AND you can always say that your morality with your definition of it requires special consideration because it is personal to you. With this definition of morality, there is no morality.
You do not understand because you do not want to understand due to you wanting to be your own “god” making up your own rules to follow fitting whatever it is you want them to be.
Beyond Doubt – Christianity is True – Atheism is False http://bit.ly/5vtvvF
You are like a broken record.
thank you