Friday, September 26, 2008

God is Not a Force of Nature - Why Evolutionists Don't Understand

Understandably, most atheists tend to take a very scientific approach to every issue they attempt to tackle. Whether it be deciding which medicines will treat a disease best, or which pair of socks will be least likely to get them funny looks in the workplace, atheists will almost always resort to conducting multiple trials and comparing the results, searching for consistency. There is, of course, nothing wrong with this approach and, in fact, it is often-times the best approach in a dilemma. The problem, however, manifests itself most clearly when this same logic is applied to the existence of God in relation to the personal accounts and experiences of theists. You see, while it is perfectly acceptable to test the existence of a natural force, such as gravity, by simply conducting trials and seeing if multiple trials yield consistent results, the same cannot be said for God. Why is this? Allow me to offer you a couple of hypothetical situations and perhaps you'll begin to understand:


Christian: "When I was 12 my grandmother was dying and I prayed to God to heal her, and, even though the doctor had said there was no hope, she was healed that same day. That's how I know God is real and that He hears my prayers."

Atheist: "Plenty of 12-year-old kids have prayed for God to heal their relatives before, and He didn't. Therefore, your 'evidence' isn't really evidence at all."


Christian: "After I became a Christian, God helped me to overcome my drug-addiction. I must have tried hundreds of times before, but I just couldn't do it. Only God could have done something like that."

Atheist: "Plenty of non-Christians have overcome drug-addictions, any psychiatrist can do what you claim your God did. Not to mention all the Christians who struggle with drug-addictions that they could never overcome - no matter how many times they prayed."




Notice how atheists often-times find themselves incapable of accepting a Christian's personal experiences as genuine simply because they can't reproduce the results multiple times. Now, I need to make a distinction, if God were simply a force of nature then such refutations would be quite impressive. However, if we apply the same arguments to the existence of an intelligent being, we realize that they are, of course, absurd. If someone were to say: "I know Matthew exists, because I ran into him at the mall once, and he bought me a milk-shake," would an acceptable refutation be: "That doesn't mean anything, you silly, irrational fool. If that were really true, then Matthew would buy everyone he ran into at the mall a milk-shake. Because, as you freely admit, he probably doesn't, I can only assume that your entire story is meaningless and you have no good reason to believe Matthew exists." Of course not, that would be ridiculous. While this logic applies well to the predictable forces of nature, which are assumed to respond in exactly the same way when introduced to the exact same circumstances multiple times, the same cannot be said for intelligent, decision-making entities.

So why does this issue come up so frequently? Ironically, it's our own fault. We as Christians will often try so hard to present an appealing argument for God's existence that we will subconsciously begin to treat Him more as a concept, idea, or natural force, than as the Omnipotent God of the universe who possesses both the ability and the right to make His own decisions based upon information which may, or may not, be available even to us. We paint an inaccurate picture, then complain of the unfortunate results.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Empirical Proof That God Rules and I'm an Idiot...

Hey guys, I don't usually write about personal stuff, so I'll make this short and sweet. God has once again shown how incredible He is, how stupid I am, and how infinite His grace truly is by picking me up, dusting me off, and putting me back on the right path again. And what instrument did He use to do it? Simple. He used the notes from the sermon that I gave two months ago. This just proves, once again, that Jesus rules... and I'm an idiot.

For those of you who already suspected that I was an idiotic fool only pretending to have all the answers, you've proven far wiser than I, and while I still may not agree with you on every topic, I have finally come around to your end of the table on this one.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Is Evolution Unfalsifiable?


While I'm contemplating my next full-length post (and please don't point out how long it's been, I'm quite aware of the recent lull), I thought I'd just throw my latest gripe out there for you guys to look over...

After giving the issue much thought, I've concluded that the theory of evolution must be one of two things:

1. Entirely unfalsifiable

2. Very close to being entirely unfalsifiable

So, since I'm sure you're wondering, here's the question that sparked this train of thought (this is a question for evolutionists, obviously):

"If, hypothetically, evolution were false, what evidence would you need to see in order to convince you of it?"

Or perhaps more specifically:

"What hypothetical evidence in opposition to evolution could exist that the theory would not be able to offer an explanation for?"

Try looking at it this way:

1. Take a piece of "evidence" in favor of evolution.

2. Reverse it (i.e. suppose the exact opposite had been discovered instead).

3. Ask yourself if, coming at it from a new angle, this new piece of evidence would have any negative impact on the theory whatsoever.

Let's take a look at this formula in action:

1. The fossil record is considered evidence for evolution, because creatures appear in the fossil record in the same order in which they are believed to have evolved.

2. Suppose the fossil record was jumbled (not in the correct order)

3. While it would no longer technically be 'evidence,' evolutionists would remain unphased (ironically, the fossil record is jumbled, by the way, that's how I know they would remain unphased).

So, if any evolutionists out there are up to a challenge, I challenge you to give a specific (hypothetical, of course) example of how evolution could potentially be falsified.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Your Thoughts?

Hey guys, sorry for the stunning lack of activity lately... I've been running low on material and inspiration. So... I figured I'd ask YOU what you want to talk about! You can submit your topics in the 'comments' section of this post, or in the 'Your Thoughts' form in the right column.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew