Comments on: That Looks Quite Circular…

By: Aj

Aj — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 19:17:28 +0000

Daniel Hoffman,

THAT’S not evidence, it must have a natural explanation!

What does that mean, are you saying there is evidence for God? I’d like to hear it. I don’t think atheists are metaphysical naturalists, they’re not going to say there must have a natural explanation. If they value the scientific method they’re going to use methodological naturalism, and aren’t going to take a supernatural explanation from you.

One thing to keep in mind, is that if God does in fact exist, He can’t be subject to the scientific method, because God by definition is not subject to anything and has a reality and authority far above any human experiment.

You say that, but I doubt you can explain anything about it. I’d be pleased if you could give me a definition of “reality” and “authority” as I’m unfamiliar with the way you’re using the words.

By: Daniel Hoffman

Daniel Hoffman — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 12:30:18 +0000

It’s all good.

By: Richard Wade

Richard Wade — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 05:55:46 +0000

Daniel, I’m sorry to have underestimated your understanding. I trust you know I meant no slight. Sometimes I jump in too quickly.

By: Daniel Hoffman

Daniel Hoffman — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:03:53 +0000

Richard, I do understand that.
In an attempt to simplify I wasn’t as careful as I should have been. Sorry.

*“I don’t believe in God -> because there’s no evidence -> THAT’S not evidence, it must have a natural explanation!”

By: Richard Wade

Richard Wade — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 03:29:05 +0000

Daniel, you have been around here for a while, but with respect I think you misunderstand what 99.9% of the atheists in the world think. They don't say "There is no god because there is no evidence." They say they have no belief in god because there is no evidence. Until you see the huge difference between these two statements you will not understand the vast majority of atheists. Here is a concise explanation. Having no belief in gods is not at all the same as having a belief that there are no gods. They are utterly different.

By: Daniel Hoffman

Daniel Hoffman — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 22:07:45 +0000

Coming from inside the Christian community, I can tell you that a lot of Christians today, especially American Christians, are pretty ignorant of what Christianity has historically believed and confessed about the Word of God. That’s why you often get silly arguments. But in the end, I do admit the argument is somewhat circular. I think though, also, that every argument for a worldview is ultimately going to be circular. Atheism is circular in that it always goes back to the presupposition of naturalism. “There’s no God -> because there’s no evidence -> THAT’S not evidence, it must have a natural explanation!”

Anyways, here’s a statement from a confession of faith from the 1600’s about the Word of God, if anyone’s interested:

“Question 4: How does it appear that the Scriptures are the Word of God?
Answer: The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God, by their majesty and purity; by the consent of all the parts, and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God; by their light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build up believers unto salvation: but the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very Word of God.”

One thing to keep in mind, is that if God does in fact exist, He can’t be subject to the scientific method, because God by definition is not subject to anything and has a reality and authority far above any human experiment. That may be one reason this confession doesn’t rely on that type of argument.

By: Siamang

Siamang — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:21:57 +0000

Notice that loop keeps you from getting to profit!

Time for a nested loop:

for n = 1 to 100
Sell book
build megachurch
profit!
scandal!
write book of contrition
next n

By: J. J. Ramsey

J. J. Ramsey — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:13:21 +0000

Siamang: “God would want our senses to be accurate in sensing him goto 1″

So that’s why goto is considered harmful!

By: Siamang

Siamang — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:56:25 +0000

They don’t use that circle much anymore.

Instead what we get is:

1: Belief in what our senses relay is properly basic
2: I sense God
3: God would want our senses to be accurate in sensing him goto 1
4: Profit!

By: Robert Nevin

Robert Nevin — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:34:20 +0000

Some years ago I encountered a fledgling street evangelist, who fearlessly strode right into “the circle”. When I pointed his predicament out to him, he seemed truly perplexed that no matter how many times he opened the Bible to show me a verse, he couldn’t escape circularity.

After a while, I let him go. My guess is he likely sought counsel from a more experienced Christian, who then introduced him to the field of apologetics.

Christian apologetics is the fine art of obscuring the essential circularity of Christian beliefs.