I’m disappointed to report that Tommy has not given me permission to publish our latest private exchange, but hopefully you can glean the gist of it through this latest public discussion.  Tommy has indicated that he is done with this discussion, but past experience with professed atheists who have said the same lead me to believe that this may not be the last installment.

Again Tommy’s words are in the brackets: //”  “//.

//”Your response is still unsatisfactory.”//

My responses are not intended to, nor could they possibly, satisfy one who denies God.  Proof does not equal persuasion, and that you are not persuaded by my responses is to be expected.  Too often Christians formulate their responses to satisfy the demands of the professed unbeliever so that they will repent, but, according to Scripture, that is turning things upside down.  2 Timothy 2:25 says that Christians must gently instruct their opponents in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.  Repentance comes before a knowledge of the truth, not after.  Since Scripture tells us that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7), and that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ (Colossians 2:2,3), it follows that in order to be able to justify anything you claim to know, you must first repent of denying your only foundation for knowledge – The Lord God Almighty.

//”Obviously Sye, your objective is to twist and turn this whole dialog, never getting to the point. ‘Round and round we go’. “//
The simple fact is Tommy that you are not getting the “Racing for Pinks” analogy.  You are in a stolen car revving your engine, and I am simply asking you to produce your ownership papers.  The louder you rev, the more you drown out my request.

//”In our PM, we were discussing ‘truth’ and you asked me to define it, where I responded that truth is “a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true”. (Merriam-Webster) In my own words, I guess truth is how WE define reality. “/

And in our latest PM discussion (which you will not allow me to publish), I explained the absurdity and self-refuting nature of your notion of truth.  If truth is simply what is accepted as true, then everything that anyone accepts is true and everything that anyone rejects is false.  No one could be wrong about anything.  You know this is absurd and you refuted yourself every time you said that I was wrong about anything.  Denying absolute truth absolutely is so blatantly fallacious that the only possible explanation for you not getting it is that you simply refuse to.

//”But how does a chimp define truth? Or a dog? Or a tree? Or a star? Or a rock sitting on an alien moon on the other side of the galaxy?”//

Surely you are not suggesting that since animals or inanimate objects cannot define truth that truth is therefore a human construct?  None of them could define the universe either, surely it does not follow that the universe is then a human construct?  Furthermore, according to your ‘reasoning’ the universe could have both existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way before there were humans around to formulate the laws which deem that such a contradictory proposition could not be true, and after all humans died off, then contradictions could once again be true.  It follows from your reasoning that either a) Humans alter the nature the nature of the universe such that it contradictions cannot be true, or b) You do not know that you exist now!  Either proposition is equally absurd.

//” Humans define truth. It is a human concept. Again, it means nothing unless we are around to define it. “//

I realize that your background is not in logic Tommy, but you are simply committing the fallacy of question begging here.  All you are saying is that truth could not exist without humans because truth is a human construct, which is viciously circular and unproven.  How do you know what can or cannot exist without humans?  How do you know that God does not exist and is not the source of all truth?

//”How does that prove (or disprove) anything? “//

Again, the very concept of proof presupposes absolute truth.  That is why I have repeatedly asked you to give me even one fact assuming your view of arbitrary truth!  The very concept of proof assumes absolutes, which assumes God, but you can’t hear that over the rev of the engine in your stolen car!

//”I ask again. Why take me down that road? What is point?”//

To expose the inconsistency of your worldview and your precommitment to belief in God.

//” If you want to debate the philosophical implications of truth, logic, and so forth you should take this discussion elsewhere.”//

If you wish to discuss science, you need the foundation from which to do so. That I exposed that you have none, does not mean that I should abandon my approach.

//” Philosophy is not my strong point.”//

Clearly, but I am patient, and am willing to give you all the time you want to investigate your foundations for what you are doing.  Of course I would much rather that you repent of denying the God that you know exists, rather than assuming Him, while at the same time denying Him, in a faux search in the opposite direction.

//” I thought our original discussion was science related and how it pertains to God.”//

That’s like saying: “I thought you were here to race, but all you are doing is talking about these pink slips.”  Science assumes uniformity, truth, logic, reasoning etc. etc. which assume God.  Science pertains to God as science would be impossible without God.

//” Nonetheless, since science is practiced in the ‘physical’, I guess it would be pointless for us to continue, as you mentioned that “God is supernatural, not natural”. Thus, he cannot be identified by scientific means. I can’t give you a solid answer beyond that.”//

I am not looking for you to define God, I am simply asking you to justify what you are doing without God.  If it is your position that you will only discuss things in the natural realm, then perhaps you can tell me where in the natural realm we find the laws of logic?  If you can’t (and you will not be able to), then on what basis do you use logic in your science?

//”By the way, I was merely responding to your original argument when you state that, “you cannot account for truth, knowledge and logic without God”. I’m merely pointing out that you cannot account for ‘truth, knowledge and logic’ without humans, not God. This was my whole point. Again, these principles are inapplicable outside of the human experience.”//

Well, let me put it to you point blank then: Could the universe have both existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way before there were humans around to formulate the law of non-contradiction?  If not, why not?  If so, did the existence of humans alter the nature of the universe?  If not, how do you know that you exist?  If you don’t, how do you know anything?

//”I should mention one more thing Sye. I meant what I said last night. I got into this conversation with good intentions. I believe the exchange of information is not just important, but vital. I am like a sponge, always willing to learn something new (if not, I wouldn’t have entertained this dialog as long as I did). “//

I am happy to leave it to those reading along to determine as to whether or not you were in learning mode.

//”I think you probably approached it the wrong way with me (but I don’t blame you, some atheists can get pretty nasty).”//

I approach all God deniers the same way in debate no matter their degree of cordiality.  I point out the absurdity of their view and urge them to repent for their sin against the God that they know exists.

//”Naturally, you have a defense mechanism for people like me.”//

It’s called “truth.” 

//”But I am not like everyone else. I am open minded and open to all sorts of discussions.”//

I beg to differ, but again, I will leave that to the readers to determine.  They may wish to go back to our original discussion and see if you came close to answering any of my questions or even attempting to do so.

//” Trying to ‘outsmart’ me or make a mockery of me or trap me into open-ended questions shouldn’t be your angle.”//

It isn’t, but Tommy, in a random universe why shouldn’t it be?  Where do you get moral oughts in a universe without an absolute standard of morality. You see every objection you make, assumes the truth of my worldview.

//”What does that do in light of a better understanding?”//

Fact is, you simply cannot understand until you repent.

//”This is not a proper act of persuasion.”//

I thought truth was up to individual perception?  Here again you are assuming some standard of truth in order to tell me what is and is not proper, once again refuting your position.

//”I am always willing to listen, as long I receive reciprocal respect.”//

I have shown you the utmost of respect, while exposing your views for what they are.

//”Maybe we have things we can learn from each other, and grow in the process. Somewhere along lines we lost track of that.”//

Learning assumes truth, knowledge, logic etc. which assume God.  I cannot help that you do not like that I have exposed the fallacy of your worldview.

//”Anyways, I respect your viewpoints. It is admirable how you are able to defend your faith with such ease.”//

As professed atheists love when I admit, I am only a tool.    Christians are commanded to answer everyone who challenges their faith (1 Peter 3:15), and that command was given by God through a fisherman.  Fishermen are not known for their intellectual prowess, but when defending the faith in the way that God has equipped us to do, it is easy.

//”I still do not agree with you, but that does not mean that this dialog has not been educational (in one way or another).”//

I hope and trust that at very least it has been educational for those reading along.

//”To that I bow out. It’s been a pleasure.”//

You know where to find me my friend.  I hope and pray, and urge my fellow Christians who are reading along to do so as well, that God grants you repentance unto a knowledge of the truth.

Indeed thank you for taking the time to engage me,

Sye