A couple days ago this blogger lectured a friend of mine about how Christians don’t understand “evidence”.
He suggested we read this article to educate ourselves about what evidence is and how to use it.
Eager for an education, I read the article.
…and I had a few questions.
I think I was polite and respectful.
However, I don’t think I was understood.
Below is the conversation I had with the blog author.
Then, just when we had reached an agreement about the nature of evidence.
The Spartan said:
No desire to learn??!!
On the contrary, I learned a whole lot from this exchange.
8 Responses
Something I notice about atheists, they’re always trying to appeal to an authority with little self awareness about it. So “I’ll direct you to any academic study,” is an appeal to authority. “Academics” or “ALL scientists,” is a statement of faith because of course, atheists don’t know “all” academics and “all” scientists. Also, they don’t know all academics and all scientists are competent or in possession of the truth. There is absolutely no evidence that their source of “all authority” even agrees with them or that it is even worthy of their trust. “All academics” is a made up category, a figment of one’s imagination. “All academics” is not evidence of anything except one’s attempt to create an authority.
He never actually got around to citing his sources either….
Irony is that they still have to appeal to authority. Just not the Highest authority.
Here’s what I’ve learned. 1) Spartan doesn’t understand the classical argument for God one wit. Every example he used was either arguing against Theistic Personalism (watchmaker, Pascal’s wager, etc,) or the god of the gaps (Helios). He doesn’t understand that there actually is a logically deductive conclusion one MUST make about a prime mover, based on everyday evidence in nature. 2) He’s changing the definition of evidence in order to suit his argument.
In conclusion, more of the same vapidity we see coming from our common garden variety atheist today. You would think one of them would crack open a philosophy book and at least try to engage the argument. Then the rest of the herd would have something interesting to parrot.
Problem is that engaging the argument usually results in conversion.
Well that my friends this is a Spartan who doesn’t want to admit he’s wrong. I base this prediction on the evidence of not answering questions and citing links that don’t follow what he said. There were a number of sentences that seemed to break the law of non-contradiction. Subatomic particles are stuff you can’t turn around and call them nothing. How can a something be made of nothing. I believe he knew exactly what John was driving at and was too proud to admit it. Thanks John for banging your head against the wall with the atheists.
I learned two things…
1) I need not ever engage in a serious conversation with anyone who requires many, many… MANY words to say so little.
2) Anyone who has expanded his area of expertise to “in our local universe,” obviously has too much to think about and sooooo many words floating around in his head that answering a simple question is, based on the evidence, pert-near impossible.
That said…. I have a new summer project thanks to your due diligence and patience with the SoySpartain: I’m going to do my best to make “Meanwhile, in our local universe…” the next big viral meme sensation.
T-shirts? Mouse pads?
Logical reasoning isn’t by itself evidence 😒
You look at trees and label them just so,
(for trees are
trees', and growing isto grow’);you walk the earth and tread with solemn pace
one of the many minor globes of Space:
a star’s a star, some matter in a ball
compelled to courses mathematical
amid the regimented, cold, Inane,
where destined atoms are each moment slain. – Tolkien in “Mythopoeia”