This week’s podcast is a Google hangout discussion about the Atheist and Christian differences in relation to human nature, the will, sentients, noetic ability, etc. (Anthropology). Christopher Maute a professing atheist joined in for the discussion. The discussion went into the nature of morality and which World View has the ability to deal with the actions of men.
In this episode Jason covers an assortment of topics. First he briefly covers cage-stage Calvinism, then he goes into a lengthy conversation that occurred back in Oct 2015 on Twitter with a Roman Catholic on Mary being our mediator. After that discussion Jason goes into a discussion with an agnostic/atheist on morality and how the Triune nature of God must be assumed to provide a justification for objective morals. We look into how this distinguishes presuppositional apologetics from evidential and classical apologetics.
Is the atheist making a coherent claim when he says that he has a lack of belief in a god? Today Jason goes into this question and examines it to see if there is any justification to the claim. Jason also goes into the meanings of the terms “atheist” and “agnostic”. We examine if atheists consistently use these terms. Jason examines what Scripture says about whether people know that God exists and what the Bible says about the faith a Christian has.
In this episode Jason finishes up the topic last week on postmodernism and its impact on the Church. Jason then goes into the topic of how unbelievers borrow from the Christian world view. Unbelievers will by necessity have to borrow meaning, purpose, objective morality, uniformity, rationality, human value and dignity, universal laws, objective truth and consciousness from Christianity even though they deny the truthfulness of Christianity.
In this episode Jason goes over the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) from within the Presuppositional Apologetic. TAG is a specific argument to address atheism. We go over multiple formulations of TAG. At then end a small portion of a debate between William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss is reviewed to demonstrate the differences between evidential and presuppositional apologetics.
Every human being’s beliefs about the world has a starting point, a line of reasoning that has a beginning. Most have not even taken the time to think about the fact that they have this starting point, but everyone, no one excluded, has a starting point to all lines of reasoning. Most assume their starting point without giving it any thought.
This starting point can be described as a world view. A world view is comprised of a set of presuppositions and is controlled by an ultimate authority. Some will insist that they have no world view. They may say that they are completely objective and weigh all the evidence for all arguments and choose the one with the most evidence. This may sound good at face value, but the belief that we need to except the possibility of everything and weigh all the evidence is in itself a world view and a rather absurd and self-refuting one at that. They will say they are completely objective but by their own definition of their world view they exclude all world views that they don’t believe to be objective therefore they are not being completely objective. These same people often claim to be tolerant but won’t tolerate a view they deem intolerant. This means they will only tolerate those that share their world view of tolerance. This is very intolerant and therefore refutes their own world view. No human being is completely objective. All approach the evidence with a set of presuppositions and an ultimate authority. As a Christian I do not claim to be completely objective or tolerant. I will not even waste any time examining evolution to see if it might be true or has enough evidence to support it. Any world view outside of the Bible has to argue for itself by borrowing presuppositions from the Biblical world view therefore I have no reason to even entertain it. (I will expound on this further in the article)