cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
I am involved in an email correspondence with an evolution-supporting atheist. (Not sure if there is any other type of atheist ) Anyway, he is bringing up all sorts of "evidence" for evolution, some of those being: vestigial organs,
recently discovered evolutionary predecessors of humans, etc..
I am having some trouble seeing how to apply the transcendental method of argumentation to this discussion. The reason for my difficulty is, I think, a lack of understanding as to why I need to argue for the truth of the WHOLE God of scripture, not just theism.
If God revealed to us that he had made pink elephants, what do we do with that? Surely, the entire bible needs to be presupposed in order to make reality intelligible, but would the lack of pink elephants make such a presupposition difficult? ( I know I'm bordering on actually departing from the presuppositionalist perspective into the evidentialist camp )
So if the atheist that I am emailing ends up agreeing that the God of the bible is the necessary presupposition for such a theory, but still sees so much evidence for evolution that he decides it is also necessary to believe in evolution, then what? He is obviously not believing in the God of the bible, because Jehovah created creation.
To turn it into a broader question: what if (keep in mind, this is hypothetical) we knew that morality, logic, and science presupposed the God of the bible, but we found incredible evidence that mount Ararat never existed, evolution is true, egypt never enslaved the israelites, there was never such a place as Jerusalem, etc.? In other words, WHAT IF our reality spoke against the bible in many "less important" places than the establishment of morality, logic, and science? What would we do then? I ask this question because I could definitely see my atheist friend going there. He may, in the future, grant that certain parts of the Christian God are necessary for intelligibility, but that the evidence in the world necessitates belief in evolution. Again, such a belief would not be in the God of the bible. But what do I do in such a situation?
It **seems** my transcendental argument has run out of steam here, except for the fact that if the whole bible is not presupposed, then we cannot presuppose any of it, and we're back where we started.
Perhaps a brief re-explanation of why me must presuppose the ENTIRE God of the bible would be in order. I feel I have an understanding of why, but I'm having trouble applying it. I also think this because I have difficulty explaining to my evidential apologist friend why we must argue for the existence of the ENTIRE God of scripture in our apologetic efforts. He thinks that we should argue for theism, then parts of Christianity, until we have the whole. I have a hard time coming up with reasons why this shouldn't be our approach, though it isn't my approach. I know that if we aren't arguing for the existence of ALL of the God of Christianity, we aren't arguing for the Christian God at all, but that doesn't have much effect on him.
OK, that's it. Educate away, please.
recently discovered evolutionary predecessors of humans, etc..
I am having some trouble seeing how to apply the transcendental method of argumentation to this discussion. The reason for my difficulty is, I think, a lack of understanding as to why I need to argue for the truth of the WHOLE God of scripture, not just theism.
If God revealed to us that he had made pink elephants, what do we do with that? Surely, the entire bible needs to be presupposed in order to make reality intelligible, but would the lack of pink elephants make such a presupposition difficult? ( I know I'm bordering on actually departing from the presuppositionalist perspective into the evidentialist camp )
So if the atheist that I am emailing ends up agreeing that the God of the bible is the necessary presupposition for such a theory, but still sees so much evidence for evolution that he decides it is also necessary to believe in evolution, then what? He is obviously not believing in the God of the bible, because Jehovah created creation.
To turn it into a broader question: what if (keep in mind, this is hypothetical) we knew that morality, logic, and science presupposed the God of the bible, but we found incredible evidence that mount Ararat never existed, evolution is true, egypt never enslaved the israelites, there was never such a place as Jerusalem, etc.? In other words, WHAT IF our reality spoke against the bible in many "less important" places than the establishment of morality, logic, and science? What would we do then? I ask this question because I could definitely see my atheist friend going there. He may, in the future, grant that certain parts of the Christian God are necessary for intelligibility, but that the evidence in the world necessitates belief in evolution. Again, such a belief would not be in the God of the bible. But what do I do in such a situation?
It **seems** my transcendental argument has run out of steam here, except for the fact that if the whole bible is not presupposed, then we cannot presuppose any of it, and we're back where we started.
Perhaps a brief re-explanation of why me must presuppose the ENTIRE God of the bible would be in order. I feel I have an understanding of why, but I'm having trouble applying it. I also think this because I have difficulty explaining to my evidential apologist friend why we must argue for the existence of the ENTIRE God of scripture in our apologetic efforts. He thinks that we should argue for theism, then parts of Christianity, until we have the whole. I have a hard time coming up with reasons why this shouldn't be our approach, though it isn't my approach. I know that if we aren't arguing for the existence of ALL of the God of Christianity, we aren't arguing for the Christian God at all, but that doesn't have much effect on him.
OK, that's it. Educate away, please.