Ive had alot of people post this video to my wall or tag me in it and I do appreciate the thought. I do. Here were my initial thoughts on the first person that sent it to me. Well Id first say when I do talk and witness to atheist I dont debate evolution with them simply because its a long debate that would go no where and not change their mind. Granted many other arguments I could give for Gods existence wouldnt change their mind either so my main aim (aside from of course salvation which would be ideal) I at the least want to get them to doubt their atheism. That being said rather than debate evolution, which we would have to discuss which type of evolution, the main two would be micro and macro, I aim at the implications of what their beliefs hold and the lack of explanation their beliefs actually give. I also dont debate or make the debate about God and faith vs science because that would also be a pointless debate and much like evolution wouldnt even be an issue in regards to Gods existence. Let me explain. By debating evolution and science with them automatically affirms their stance that its either God or evolution and science when the reality is that neither one of these threaten Gods existence in any measure and the first obstacle for an atheist is not to deny science (neither should it be for the believer) and not to deny evolution (that could be a later topic after them excepting the existence of God) but rather the main issue should be belief in God Himself. So to tackle what this guy says: To say evolution is a theory and is therefore not true is a bad argument. Gravity is also considered a theory, the beginning of the universe is consider a theory, but both theories that virtually no one rejects. And again this is just not an issue that needs to be raised when dealing with atheist. Who cares what they call it, theory or not, the topic and main focus should be Gods existence. Also the law of thermodynamics does not necessarily entail that chaos can not produce order (although that is true about the order part) but rather this entails that everything eventually uses up useful energy. Now if this guy new what he was talking about he could argue for the fact that the universe is not eternal and that it had a beginning and beginnings need causes, but thats a separate issue in itself. Then he goes on to say what science believes. Lol science has no beliefs. Science does not think. Scientist have beliefs, but science does not. So again hes feeding into the atheistic belief that science is the enemy of God and that science is not a good measuring stick. Both of which are not the case and not the issue in regards to Gods existence. Then he wrongly goes into saying i believe in God because Ive experienced him and felt him. This is not something that an atheist would buy as evidence. Because if thats sufficient warrant for belief in God then why cant a buddist, muslim, or hindu say the same about their religion? And then the universe etymology of uni-verse, single sentence. Although this is a great preaching point for christians, this would again do absolutely nothing for the atheist. After all, Thursday literally comes from the pagan perception That the god of thunder was thor so we gave him his own day, thorsday, now we say thursday. But clearly this doesnt mean we still believe in Thor. Again, these are not good points or issues to raise to convince atheist. In the end, he just preached with a preachers tone and not much sound reasoning behind what he was saying if this was aimed at atheist. As believers we need to study world views and know how to accurately address these atheist objections with out having to preach at them or drop the F bomb all the time (saying its all faith). I fear people like this push more atheist away than bring em to the knowledge of God by wasting time arguing evolution or science with atheist who already dont believe the very thing we are assuming is true. Finally Id say me personally, I would have addressed the atheist in this sort of manner: Even if evolution was true it would only account for how we got the material world and nothing more. Darwinian evolution is a purely physical process through which matter rearranges itself into more complicated chunks of matter. If this is the case then we are still left with an explanation to account for the immaterial things such as free will, logic, numbers, mathematics, mind, consciousness and the like. Because a purely materialistic mechanism such as evolution can not produce the non material realm such as consciousness because purely physical objects do not think or have free will. Secondly, if our brains are a product of pure physics and brought about by an unguided, irrational, non logical process such as evolution, then why should we believe the rationality that our brains produce if the brain itself was formed by something non rational? If physicalism is true then we have no justification for free will, morality, logic, reason, philosophy, consciousness, thoughts, mind, truth, mathematics and the like. All you have done mr atheist if evolution is true is show how we got the matter but not the stuff behind it. Much like a letter is merely ink and paper, ink and paper do not explain the information content that is held with in it. Something like that and go from there. and as a side personal note, im very fearful when people are given a platform to which they are not adequately trained for because more damage than good can be done. Thats all.
Posted on: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 16:09:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015