I recorded a video and posted it on YouTube called The Theory of Evolution is a Crock. (You can view the video for yourself at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMUdOShELLk&lc=UgyJXMOVBF4eN_5c3el4AaABAg). In this video, I made the point that Naturalism is a belief system, and those who use it to try to prove that the Theory of Evolution is true are making faith arguments, not scientific ones.
It didn’t take long for someone to jump out to challenge my point of view. Following is that discussion.
@PhrontDoor
To date, there has been both NO evidence for any non-naturalistic explanation for any phenomenon that has ever happened AS well as utter refutations for all supernatural claims.
If you want to prove that there IS another ‘possibility’ to naturalistic explanations, then you have to rely on naturalism to prove that. Furthermore, you have to rely on the methodology that leads to naturalism to prove any alternative to naturalism.
Go ahead.. try to refute anything I’d said.
Freddy Davis
What you have said is only true if Naturalism is true, and only then if you can prove that it is true using some naturalistic methodology – which you can’t do. You are assuming, first of all, that naturalistic proofs are the only kind of proof that exists. That is simply not true, and even Naturalism can’t be proven using its own requirements. Beyond that, you are assuming that Theism (and the other two worldview categories, as well) is not true – and are claiming it based on the assumption that Naturalism is true (again based on your faith assumptions about Naturalism, not on any naturalistic proof you can bring to the table). So, prove, using some naturalistic methodology, that the natural universe operating by natural laws is all that exists and you win the argument. But until you do, all you have done is to assert your faith in naturalistic philosophy.
I do believe in God, and I believe it by faith. But believing something by faith does not mean it is not objectively real, and it doesn’t mean it is believed by “blind” faith. There is evidence that God exists. It is just that the evidence is not all empirical. There are empirical elements to it, as well, but logic and personal experience also legitimately go into the mix. While you are not going to like that, the truth is, if God actually does exist as an objectively real person who is transcendent to the natural universe, it is not unreasonable at all that He is not subject to the laws of the natural universe. He created them, after all. And if it is true that He created human beings with the capacity to interact with Him as a spiritual person, once again it is not unreasonable that we can know Him in a personal relationship. Based on your naturalistic philosophical beliefs, this would definitely seem unreasonable, but your assumptions are wrong. God can be known, and I (along with probably billions of people throughout history) know Him.
But the only way you are ever going to know that for yourself is to take that step of faith and ask Him to enter your life. If and when you do that, He will confirm it to you, and you will recognize the truth of what I am saying. If you are not willing to do that, you will be stuck with your assertion that naturalistic proofs are necessary to prove the nature of reality without ever being able to show that proof. What you believe you believe by faith. It is your religion.
@PhrontDoor
@practicalapologetics6164 You made assertions, you refuted nothing of what I had said. Part of the reason you couldn’t refute anything was because you HAVE to use naturalistic methodologies to do so.
You’re welcome, and thanks for proving my points.
Freddy Davis
@PhrontDoor That’s a weird response. I refuted EVERYTHING you said. “Naturalistic only” refutations are only valid if all that exists is the natural universe operating by natural laws. I have disputed that point and challenged you to prove, using naturalistic methods, that your naturalistic philosophy is true. It simply is not, and you can’t. It is ridiculous to claim that I have to use naturalistic methodologies to prove that transcendent reality exists. All you can do is make your assertion based on faith. You have simply repeated yourself without ever even acknowledging (or addressing) my response. Do you even understand what I have said?
@PhrontDoor
@practicalapologetics6164 You asserted that what I “have said is only true if Naturalism is true and if you can prove that it is true using some naturalistic methodology – which you can’t do. You are assuming, first of all, that naturalistic proofs are the only kind of proof that exists.”
Show ANY non-naturalistic PROOF or methodology.
I’ll wait.
And yes, I DO have a naturalistic proof showing they can be made and demonstrated sans presuppositionally.
Freddy Davis
@PhrontDoor I’m scratching my head a little, wondering if you have read what I have written, or if you simply don’t understand. You have asserted that my theistic beliefs must be proven using a naturalistic proof. That is absurd. Theism doesn’t go by the rules of Naturalism. Naturalism assumes no God and no transcendent reality. If that is true, then you are completely right.
However, Theism assumes God exists and His existence and abilities transcend the laws of the natural universe. As a Christian, I certainly believe that the use of the scientific method is valid. God created the natural universe to operate by natural laws and that we can study it using empirical means. But the natural universe is not all that exists. Therefore, the proofs associated with Theism may include some empirical elements (as we deal with matters associated with material reality), but also includes (as I mentioned before) logic and human experience. The logic in Theism assumes that what goes on in the natural universe actually does operate based on the universe’s natural laws, but also recognizes that there are elements that transcend it. Those transcendent elements include the fact that the core essence of human existence is spiritual (we are more than just our physical bodies), and we are capable of connecting with God at a spiritual level. He made us capable of that. So, the non-naturalistic proof of the existence of God is that I know Him (and this is not just a private experience as millions, perhaps billions, of people throughout history have the same experiential knowledge). We communicate with each other. The fact that you don’t believe it has no necessary relationship to reality. It is just your opinion unless you can demonstrate, using a naturalistic methodology, that what I have said is not true. So, was the wait worth it?
Interesting that you assert that you can provide a naturalistic proof that the natural universe operating by natural laws is all that exists, and that it can be proven sans presuppositionally. So, if you have that kind of proof, why haven’t you shared it? I have already asked you for it more than once. I’ve already been waiting.
————————————————-
At this point, @PhrontDoor quit communicating. It is my thought that he finally realized that he was not quite as nonreligious as he thought he was.
“Nones” is a term that is increasingly being used to refer to people who say they have no religion. Over the last number of years, the number of people who used to self-identify as Christians, or as religious, has dramatically decreased, while the “nones” have dramatically increased.
But, the “nones” are not really nones. They actually do have a religious faith – faith in a naturalistic worldview. They really do believe that the natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists. And they view reality through their naturalistic lens.
And when it comes to consideration of the Christian faith, they believe that legitimate proof for the truth of Christianity must be given using their lens. They are insistent that Christians prove the existence of God, and of transcendent reality, using naturalistic proofs (ie. using science).
But the assumptions of Naturalism are simply not true. As can be seen in the conversation above, even Naturalism itself can’t be proven true using naturalistic proofs. People who have that mindset simply can’t conceive that it is possible to view reality through a different lens.
And that is the value of understanding worldview concepts. It gives us the tools to not only understand where other people are coming from, but also gives us a bridge that allows us to communicate across worldview barriers to effectively share the truth of the gospel.
[If you would be interested in having a presentation at your church or Christian organization to help equip your people to deal with those who hold non-biblical worldview beliefs, contact us at: freddy@marketfaith.org.]
© 2023 Freddy Davis