[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / doomer / flutter / jenny / roze / tingles / utoronto / vg / voros ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

File: b38770faa078c95⋯.mp4 (3.75 MB, 640x360, 16:9, Dyer vs JF.mp4)

3e8f33  No.760877

Daily reminder whenever you argue with atheists simply draw out their presuppositions and show how they are incoherent.

So if you're arguing the morality of some Christian doctrine or prophet's behavior , don't let them presuppose good and evil as givens, but challenge how such things can even exist in a godless world.

3e8f33  No.760879

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>760877

If they argue evolutionary/empiricism check out C.S Lewis' materialist argument

>Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.

and Plantinga's anti-naturalism argument.


563b72  No.760937

File: 46486d20f7a3602⋯.jpg (53.67 KB, 664x466, 332:233, orthobros.jpg)

bmp


6e8886  No.760949

>>760877

The Reddit meme at the end ruined it.

>>760879

This argument doesn't make sense to me. Why thought be worthless if you're an atheist?


1c954e  No.760983

>>760949

It isn't just thought that is meaningless, but all of life. If life has no meaning, then why even bother living at all?


9ddd08  No.760996

>>760983

Apatheism. Not everything needs an answer, make your own meaning, finding an objective meaning won't change anything, etc.


e95681  No.761003

I don't really care about atheists or apologetics tbh (my fault, I suppose). But I do care about presuppositions hiding behind my own brothers' and sisters' thinking. People who are Christian, but outside traditional church thinking (I still consider them brothers though.. I just them to see the conclusion of some of their assumptions. I hope they do me the same favor if I have any bad ones too).


caf832  No.761034

>>760877

Go complain about muh dialectics somewhere else Jay


1c954e  No.761039

>>760996

Faking it til you make it is not uncommon in Christianity. There was a martyr who was an actor and he performed a full Christian service in mockery before a Roman emperor and by the end of it he confessed that he actually believed.Pascal's wager is a good retort. Atheists like to play victim. At that point, you should realize they are just being disingenous.


911fff  No.761068

>>760949

>Why thought be worthless if you're an atheist?

You're missing the point. It's an argument by contradiction: if your thoughts are the end result of random natural processes, then does "thought" really exist? Obviously, thought is not random, logic exists, and thus, there must have been something intelligent that created our intelligence. The principle of infinite regress then points to God as the original, supernatural creator of natural intelligence.


e95681  No.761070

I don't know why Jay engages in this stuff. He himself knows God is only revealed through revelation. You won't find him through philosophy… and the god you find there will have just as much in common with the theist's god (which is altogether worthless, without any sense of specificity or revelation in order to know him).


1c954e  No.761073

>>761070

Some anons just put too much stock in Dyer. He provides great intellectual headway into the faith, but like any other earthly endeavor it's ultimately fruitless. I pray that he understands this, and hope that other anons learn not to put too much into him.


5f53bb  No.761262

>>760879

That argument by CS Lewis is pretty dodgy. Its just a fancy expression of disguising your feelings of incredulity as an argument. Likewise its pretty dishonest or ignorant to hold things evolution being akin to spilled milk. Even with all of this this argument could be reversed and used to argue for atheism by holding that unless there is nothing but material objects there is no reason to trust your thoughts because divine beings could just be implanting or messing with them.

Discussions of consciousness and abstract things like numbers is a much better way to go about dealing with empiricism.

>>761070

>I don't know why Jay engages in this stuff.

Probably a combination of:

1.It gets views and attention for his other work. 2.He is American and still has that kind of volatility and fire that defines American religious and Athiest identity


4a80c0  No.761266

>>761073

He probably sees it as a form of evangelism


a61760  No.761267

>>760877

I don't argue with atheists. Nobody should. Let them pat themselves on the back and retweet themselves and have their little circle-jerks. We should focus on the needs of our community and Christians in need.


5f53bb  No.761272

>>761264

Doesnt he do simmilar things with respect to scholasticism though?

>>761267

These arent mutually exclusive. If argument can help bring friends and family to Christ it is absolutely worthwhile.


6e8886  No.761317

>Obviously, thought is not random, logic exists, and thus, there must have been something intelligent that created our intelligence.

>>761068

Why?


6e8886  No.761318

>>761317

The why is supposed to quote the green text


4970b0  No.761322

>>761272

>Doesnt he do simmilar things with respect to scholasticism though?

This is where he's extremely helpful, I think. Forget the atheists. Catholics and Orthodox are seperated brothers, and I'm sad to say Orthodox don't make enough effort to speak Catholic's language. He can.


0cf6ca  No.761337

File: 320a2b81dba1a71⋯.jpg (221.99 KB, 1124x1915, 1124:1915, Why even use logic.jpg)

>>761317

You're asking why Thought isn't Random? Or how that gets back to, God? For thought not being just this random bi product of nature. You're already consciously or unconsciously assuming it's more than just random flux. Otherwise what's the winnie the pooh of thinking about anything. Let alone Grand Get that *Grand* Scheme narratives that we can like in this thread. It just follows, which being unwarranted in it's self. But if we're still using *Logic* Then logically speaking what's the point about asking questions about, or anything for that matter. None of this going anywhere and never will go anywhere, it's all just going to end up in Nietzsche's ouroboros. As for Thought being the direct creation of, God. Well if we come to the realization that Thought actually isn't just random Chemical flux, where we're not making actual arguments. But that they do have Weight behind them. It just logically follows down the trail of. That order is established in the world. And ultimately where do i get this standard from? Why are my thoughts carrying weight to them, and why do i, like, you go out into the world with ideally, although it's evident that great many people do not. But ideally after going over thoughts acting as if they have meaning and a real weight and force to them, people then tend to go out and argue for certain axioms, even, Atheism Which is retared see, Hume, Or Nietzsche who saw these types of people as same side of a flip coin. But point being that If God Created the Universe he established order, purpose, reasoning, Logic, and everything we hold dear in this world. And it can account for yes, Thought, Which Naturalism can't even account for it's self. It's just Like C.S Lewis said in his Reply to, Dr. H.H. Price. *I don't even need to appeal to religion to refute Naturalism, Naturalism refutes it's self on it's on grounds*

Pic related just to tie it up. This, is more on logic. But with thought you can really get the same idea, i mean with thought, people even the evangelical atheist, like to and usually by some odd reason tend to have the default axiom of Yes my thoughts carry weight and meaning. Which if atheism is true they really don't, which you don't see people admitting that until you get up to someone like Hume or Nietzsche.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / doomer / flutter / jenny / roze / tingles / utoronto / vg / voros ]