Apologetic Encounters ~ Reign of Christ

October22nd

View Comments

Apologetic Encounters

Posted in: Topical

Earlier tonight, i finished an encounter from an atheist, challenging me on one of my youtube vids. He began his attack on Christianity by pointing out how the resurrection of Christ is scientifically impossible. Now, rather then get into miracles, and so on, i immediately put him on the defense. I want him to justify his claims….watch what happens. This is a straight cut and paste. ”A” for atheist. “J” for jason:

A – people dead for 3 days cannot come back alive, its a fact, the body organs and functions fail, without life to sustain the organs and the other body parts, they become useless and damaged beyond use, some within hours

J – prove it.

A – wow way to thumbs down my comment

how about instead of my going through all of what ive already read in published papers and that, you go find it, im not here to find the info for u. u can do it, u have a computer, just google “what happens to the heart after death” or “how long does it take for organs to decompose after death” or something, idk u can find it with google, the evidence is there im not retracing my steps, i have more important things to do than find info that u will ignore

and i cant believe u thumbs downed a widely known fact. nice going

if anything think about it logically, why is the reason they ask for organ donation as soon as they can after someone dies? the organs dont last very long for u to wait around and make a decision, they start decomposing and become useless for those whose lives they could potentially save

J – Define logic.

I AM thinking logically. And logically, you can not take whatever examples you may have and NECESSARILY INFER A UNIVERSAL principle that would apply to all other examples. How do you know that all organs respond the same? You don’t.

Googling that isn’t going to prove anything, unless you can point me to an article that PROVES that ALL organs in ALL cases will do what you claim they would all do.

It’s called induction.

A – you are so stupid its unbelievable

J – ah, brilliant answer from a so-called “rational” person.

A – im not using it as my answer, i dont have time to go through this $%^#@# ur a human, u should have been educated enough to understand the fundamentals of our universe, but apparently not. i dont have time to try and explain this all to you, so this was not my response to your question, its simply me stating a wide spread opinion about u

J – if you don’t have time, then stop commenting. You seem to have enough time to type all this other baloney. You won’t answer because you can’t answer.

Google problem of induction, find the solution, then get back to me.

A – i dont have the patience explaining simple concepts to you that u should already know

bottom line is if u think that a person can be dead for 3 days and then come back to life with all their organs working, you are delusional

“googling doesnt prove anything”

i’ll still google your problem

J – that’s not an answer.

Look up ad hom while you’re at it.

A – again thats not my answer to your question

its a statement that any logical person can denounce

what u fail to realize is that regardless of what we feel about the laws that govern our universe, or how we choose to interpret them or even explain them, they cannot be changed by us. its what governs our universe, and they do not abide be us, we abide by them. when u die, u will decompose. we base our judgements on what our reality gives us

so i looked up the problem of induction, and i find it to be weak. its basically asking us to ignore all information we know on the grounds of “what if”

if you go around using the problem of induction as a means of philosophical view, essentially u cannot learn anything because u will always be in doubt of whether it is always true. granted we cannot know anything for sure INCLUDING THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD

but thats why we make our conclusions based on what we are presented with our reality

J – “granted we cannot know anything for sure ” like saying that people can’t be revived after three days.

lol. This is what i love about atheists. All you have to do is keep them talking.

A – i dont have anymore time for this, u fail to understand what im trying to say, and since u have the preconception of “we cant know anything” u will not understand the fundamental laws that govern our universe.

i am done with this now

peace

=====================

See what happened? Atheists love to assert universals. It is impossible to get through life without them. Don’t let them. Make them rationally justify their assertions. Once you do, you can typically get them to say that we can’t know anything with 100% certainty, which will immediately contradict the universal assertion they made to begin with.

Here, he started off saying that it is impossible for someone to be revived after three days. Once i pressed him to acknowledge what his empiricism really leads to (skepticism) and he admitted that we can’t know anything with certainty, it then follows that he can’t know for certain that dead people can’t resurrect.

This is where empiricism/atheism leads. Self contradiction. I can give you example after example of this. You can reduce EVERY apologetic encounter with an atheist in this manner. There is a reason why God says that atheism is “foolish”.

Now, had the atheist conceded his contradiction, i would have then gone on to explain how Christianity does not suffer the problem of induction because it does not utilize empiricism. But, the atheist cut me off before we could get that far.

About the Author: Jason

Served two years as a youth minister in Anniston, AL and Houma, LA with the Southern Baptist denomination; and briefly attended New Orleans Theological Seminary. Embraced preterism while serving as an assistant to the pastor of a Reformed Baptist church in Birmingham and joined the efforts of RCM in 2003. Currently resides in Knoxville, TN with Amanda, Anna, Kaylee, Alexis, and Jordan.

Can Christianity justify induction? .::. The Irrationality of Empiricists .::. Judged By No One .::. Empiricism versus Revelation .::. Racism: Lesson in Logic

MoGrace2u

JosephVincent,
But see that must assume the scientist has discovered all there is to know about such things based on observable evidence alone. Scripture however informs us that what is seen is not telling us all there is to know - God is that unknown factor. If the worlds were made from the things not seen - spiritual things; then the spiritual is the missing link which the scientist cannot know from mere obeservation alone. God is sovereign in the world He has created and while natural laws are in place which give us confidence that the seasons will continue - we don't necessarily know how He intends to keep that promise - only that He will. Sure those laws men have discovered, play an important role. But it cannot be that those laws are the end of the matter either - Somebody has to enforce them!

Robin

Sam

Joseph,

Ha, you must forgive me. I had in mind someone else, triggered by your name. When I saw yor other posts, I was like, "this isn't that person! I agree with this guy!" Sorry bout that! See what induction does!

Pastor Joseph Vincent

I doubt that...lol. Any object that revolves around a planet either gradually comes closer or gradually goes further away over time. This is the natural course of how gravitational forces work on each other with two opposite sized and mass objects. Barring God or mankind activity or some cosmic event, the moon will fly away in billions of years...as far as we can see anyway.

MoGrace2u

Maybe the greenhouse gases have escaped the ozone layer and are deteriorating the gravitational pull of the moon... 8-P Go Green!

Pastor Joseph Vincent

cwcoty: No, the law of entropy is not reversed...if you mow your yard and it burns gas, the law of entropy is at work. If plant life takes in the suns light, and uses it for fuel along with carbon dioxide, and then releases the leftovers into the atmosphere...entropy is very much alive. Entropy is a scientific fact...the question is, does this law govern the entire universe or simply every day life cycles? I believe the latter is true, and not the former.

However, here is a cool thing to ponder:

Since the 1950's scientists have discovered that the moon becomes more distant from our planet by about 1 1/2 inches per year. In a few billion years, it will be too far from our planet to maintain any gravitational attachment to our planet, and then when it flies away the earth will spin out of control without any regular rotation. If this happens, life on earth will end as we know it. Unless God, or some natural or manmade event gets in the way and prevents this calamity, it will happen.

What say you guys to this science?

Blessings,

Joseph

Pastor Joseph Vincent

Sam,

I don't believe in an end of time, or of history. I believe that most scientists conclude that this is so because of their observations in the universe. I used to argue that, since we can observe the universe running down (entropy), that we can therefore conclude that it had a beginning (since entropy requires a process wherein the reversal would return back to an original perfect or starting point). However, all that entropy really proves is that once energy is released, it either must be regenerated and formed new, or it must take on another form. Where energy comes from no one knows. It's just there. Of course, it is my belief that God sustains all life, and the universe, and that entropy is a natural outworking of life (decay, death, pain, cell mitosis and necrosis, etc.); and that regardless of this fact, entropy does not lead to an ending universe.

I believe that the universe, and life in general lasts forever if a person is in Christ. I do not believe in the end of all things, or an end of the planet, or the end of our solar system, or any consumation outside of what has already in 70AD. My belief is only that when arguing with an atheist, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove any such thing because they are working with humanistic assumptions which require a natural explanation for everything, even when there is none that can be had, and we (Christians) are working with supernatural assumptions which require a divine explanation for everything, even when we cannot prove the validity of the origins scientifically. Both views can neither be proven nor disproven, and they are both taken on faith.

It is my opinion that the 70AD events validate the Christian view because it is possible to make a very strong case that the books of the Bible were all written prior to 70AD, and if this is true, then they are prophetic since they predicted events which took place after they were written. Since this is true, it proves (to me) that the message contained within the books of the Bible are indeed true and accurate (along with the many other evidences). This is not proof, but it is stong evidence; much stronger evidence than any natural explanations, or any other religious explanation; and certainly provides answers to life's tough questions which no atheistic paradigm can possibly answer (like, why do we have a consciouse and why are we able to reason?).

cwcoty

Two comments:

1. is there a possibility that the "law of entropy" (which in my view is not a law per se but merely a conclusion based upon repeated observations) was reversed at the cross/resurrection? If sin/death was defeated and the curse was reversed, is it not possible that it may have physical as well as spiritual ramifications?

2. Sam wrote: "If, however, one removes themselves from this dogma, and reads Scripture with an alternative in mind, it can be shown that history is something God never intended on "ending." Why would He have to? What would be the purpose of it?" When a futurist (and I don't believe I was alone on this) my desire to see sin and physical death eradicated at the end of time was tantamount. In other words, the way I KNEW the 2nd coming was future was due to my observation. I looked around...sin and physical death still reigned supreme upon the earth, so therefore the end had not yet come. A no-brainer right? Since I believed the world, and that included the seas, animals, plants etc. was corrupted by the fall, the only redemption was it's annihilation followed by a resurrection in a NH&E.

Isn't that one of the reasons futurists react so violently to preterism? We have the audacity to believe that earthly sin and physical death will continue into perpetuity. However, if we consider the flip side...our legacy will continue...it will not die. Isn't it exciting that relatives and those impacted by our commitment to Christ 5,000 years from now, will continue to populate heaven.

If earth is supposed to end, wouldn't it have been possible For God to have made that a Biblical certainty? Passages that we used to believe spoke of the end (Acts 2:16-21, Rev 6:12, Mt 24:31, 2 Pet 3:10-12) we realize has nothing to do with the dissolution of planet earth. It's definitely God's divine prerogative to end life as we know it, but wouldn't that violate His promises to the contrary?

"And He built His sanctuary like the heights, like the earth which He has founded forever." Psalms 78:69

"You who laid the foundations of the earth, So that it should not be moved forever," Psalms 104:5

"One generation passes away, and another generation comes; But the earth abides forever." Ecclesiastes 1:4

Sam

Vince,

Okay. Sounds like we are agreeing. I guess, then, what we would disagree on is this notion to an "end to history." I used to believe that. It's easy to read some of the language of the Scriptures that would imply an end to planet earth. However, we note the usage of language and Hebrew idioms here. I know that the Greeks envisioned a conflagration at the end of time, and so did the Jewish apocalypticists. These two influences, I believe, helped form the Christian Western tradition, and it has remained a dogma ever since. If, however, one removes themselves from this dogma, and reads Scripture with an alternative in mind, it can be shown that history is something God never intended on "ending." Why would He have to? What would be the purpose of it? Those are the questions I would like to see answered from a futurist perspective.

Pastor Joseph Vincent

Hey Sam...that's the same argument I make to people. Since no science can "prove" or "discover" how the universe came into existence, no law can also prove or discover how the universe continues forever. Science is limited at best to "theory" and not fact. Since God created all things out of nothing, and brought all things into existence from nothing, there is nothing scientific that can validate or prove this occurance. Likewise, even if the scientists are right about entropy in the universe (the sun running out)...which is only a theory and not a proven fact, the same "laws" which brought our universe into existence from nothing are the same law which maintain its existence (those laws are the Laws of God).

Sam

Vince,

I would point out that the scientists are wrong, and the Law of Entropy is a theory, not a fact. Second, God does not "intervene" in His universe. He runs it. There are no "laws" we have discovered about the universe that operate independent of God. If God wants the sun to burn forever, it will burn forever. Even in the scheme where some posit a restoration of a new heavens, what would that mean? Will the "restored" Sun be subject to different laws? This is the problem we encounter when we trust science as having "discovered" realitiies about how this universe works. I tend to think with the God of Job: these things are way, way, way, beyond our reach and to pretend that mortal man has "discovered" laws of reality independent of God's revelation is the height of the arrogance of Man operating on his own knowledge of "good and evil."

Pastor Joseph Vincent

Robin,

I know what you are saying concerning the "Law of life," however, ultimately, the naturalistic laws of our solar system show that at some future point the Sun (which allows our planet to regenerate life through it's heat, light, and energy), will someday run out of fuel (or so the scientists say). The atheist will argue, "yes, you can fill up a tank of gas in a car and continue going, and even when your energy is used up, you can fill up again, and continue once more. But eventually, when all the fuel is used up, the car will not continue to drive...and thus, the law of entropy continues to work as a consistent fact. Without divine intervention, all humans decay (even though their cells divide, grow, and recreate themselves, eventually, all human cells die because of decay). The same laws exist for our universe. It is expanding at an increasingly rapid rate all the time, and the "energy" only lasts as long as the fuel burning it. If our sun eventually burns out (which all scientists universally agree will happen long in our future); then our planet will die, along with all life on it.

The way I see it is that either God will intervene at some future date to prevent this process from happing as scientists propose, or the scientists are wrong about their "laws" and "theories," or humans will find a way to travel to other inhabitable planets to continue their existence for eternity.

These are questions that I don't really know if the Bible addresses...or even if we should be inquiring about. Even if these things "might happen," they are billions of years from our knowledge or time, and so what benefit do we have in even thinking about it?

MoGrace2u

If death were the final answer then that 'law of entropy' would have the final say and the decomposing body would be unrecoverable. But as Libby showed, the return of life to that body was able to heal what death was doing to it. Therefore the law of life is of greater power than the law of death.

The atheist cannot address the resurrection of Jesus' body because he cannot explain where life originates from. Therefore he thinks he has only the law of entropy to explain what he sees in this world. Death is working here, but Life is too though it is orginating from a wholly other place. If the empiricist were honest, he could be shown there is another law at work in this world that trumps what death is doing. Death may be taking its toll but life keeps renewing the earth

The fact that life continues thru birth and seeds, ought to show him that his law of entropy will not bring the world to some final end because the law of life continues here as well.

But before anybody thinks my argument supports that our bodies will be returned to life here like was the case with Jesus, one only has to see where Jesus has gone to know that coming back to earthly life, is not what our resurrection is about. And trying to get an atheist to discuss spiritual things when his focus is only on earthly things, will doubtfully end up to be a fruitful discussion. But it might give him pause to think about the fact that not all that he sees in this world is all there is to consider. Life in this world has a beginning and an end, but the resurrection AND ascension of Jesus shows that this world is not all there is. For he doesn't know that the power to give life and take it away belongs to God alone, though he witnesses that power at work daily in the world around him.

Robin

libbye

Dear Jason,
This is a story abouy true miracles, at home deliveries
36 years ago , I gave birth to a daughter that died during birth, she was born breech and the cord was caught between her body and mine. We call for the coroner immediately and they took ther to the funeral home within a half an hour.
17 years ago I gave birth to a son, who was born dead, the cord was short and wrapped around his head, he was white lifeless, and no blood in the cord.
three days before his birth the name Nathan came to my husband and he felt convinced that this baby was a boy, and he was to be called Nathan, which means God has given.
So when he was born he was lifeless, all we had was our faith to believe that God wanted this child to live, so we began doing what was coming to our mind for him, and in 3hours and 5 minutes, this child was alive, with no man's help or supervision.
I truly saw this miracle right befoe my eyes, and yes, God can and I believe he does put the body into suspended animation, until he sees fit to release it.
This is why man can not understand, it is because they do not have this knd of power, but my creator does and did it for my son, and no one else on earth can prove to me anything else . I believe he is real, I believe he has powers beyond this world, and I believe he uses them from time to time, as he sees fit.
Oh and by the way, Jesus said Lazarus was not dead, he was just asleep.
LibbyE

Joseph Vincent

Jason...you should have asked him which fundamental law of the universe explains biogenesis and the origins of all things? Since the laws of our universe dictate all other actions and reactions, which laws dictate the origins of these laws? This is the one question that no atheist or scientist is ever able to answer, including men like Stephen Hawking. There is no scientific explanation of the "beginning" of the universe. Since the universe is a closed system governed by laws and scientific principles, it tells us that the universe is also governed by the law of entropy, which means that one day all energy will be changed into a lifeless state of existence. Since this is true, this also indicates that, if we back in time, it also had an original beginning at which time this "entropy" began. It's just like decay. If something is decaying, it had to start the process at some point. The ultimate question is...what came before that point? What caused it to start in the first place? Why didn't it remain in it's non-decaying state prior to the beginning of the process of entropy? In other words, why didn't the universe stay the way it was before all this energy stuff started giving off heat and light and the entropic process of decay?

The obvious answer, which they will flatly deny, is that a higher power or source which exists outside of time, space, and the laws of the universe is the ultimate cause of it all...and this creator or cause cannot be explained within the laws of our universe or our existence. Science cannot explain it, and therefore, the atheist is left to their naturalistic wiles without any answers to the primary question at hand. Their answer is this: We just haven't figured it out yet, but there has to be an explanation.

Sam

Jason,

Great stuff. you give the atheist no where to go. There is no common ground (evidentialism). Not even can the atheist claim the universal rules of logic. They have no grounds. Reductio ad absurdum. There is no common sense, common understanding, rational laws of the universe. Even UNIverse has to be established. It could be a MULTIverse, with multilogics (polylogics - as C. S. Pierce argued), etc. This is why you don't see Clark responding much in his writings to atheists. At least with an agnostic or a religious person, you have something with which to begin - but with an atheist, the Bible simply declares: "Fool!" That's where you start. A fool can be reduced to absurdity.

Lincoln

Just tell them to read "Professional Morons" by Vincent Cheung for an introduction to inductive reasoning. Maybe it would help them to see why their arguments don't hold water.