of Proof that God Exists and Jeff Durbin, Pastor of Apologia Church in Tempe, Arizona, and radio host of Apologia Radio will join another Christian pastor to debate the truth of the Christian worldview against professed Atheism. The details of the debate can be read here.
Sye and Jeff are two of the nations best apologists (according to the humble opinion of yours truly), especially against professing
Atheism, Skepticism, Naturalism, Materialism, Secular Humanism and Agnosticism.
Is it safe to consider those denominations?
In the link to the debate info, the two of opponents to the Christian faith were introduced, and one, Mr. Bruce Gleason, was quoted as well. The purpose being to give the reader a small taste of who exactly is coming, and that taste may have been small, but it sure was bitter.
Although Jeff and Sye will do a much more sophisticated and thorough presentation of the faith as well as give a better, more triumphant rebuttal to the opposition, it still stands valuable to briefly address the small snippets of Gleason’s comments.
The following is a point by point refutation to the article’s quotations of Mr. Gleason.
“If God created reason, let’s see where that comes from.”
“I believe in scientific consensus, if I ask evolutionary psychologists where reason comes from, they will say our frontal lobes grew through a long evolution and we started using reason at an elementary level.”
It’s illogical, and therefore unreasonable, to believe in contradictions. It goes against reason to believe that the Sun is both a star of fire and a planet of ice at the same time and in the same way. According to Gleason, this was altogether reasonable for billions of years because there were no frontal lobes, and therefore no reason.
“The incident with Galileo is indeed salutary and provides an outstanding example for us today when considering the claims of things like Darwinism. But in order for us to take that lesson, it is necessary for us to know something about history and not just theology and science. The Church of that day was geocentric, not because of a close study of Scripture demanded it, but rather the best science of the day demanded it. The Church was not caught in a bind between Bible and Science, but was rather caught in a bind between Old Science and New Science. As someone has wisely said, one who marries the science of the day today should be prepared to be a widow tomorrow. More than one reader of this small book has been called an idiot for not accepting something taught in the current textbooks, and now, twenty years later, those textbooks have all been discarded and replaced— but somehow we who remain dubious remain idiots. The textbooks may come and go, but while they are here we must apparently believe in them with all our hearts.”
“Humans are very uncomfortable when we cannot explain the world around us, so (historically) God and the supernatural were used to explain the natural world around us because we didn’t have any way to explain it and it makes us feel comfortable. We don’t pray for rain anymore, we look at the weather. We don’t pray when we get an infection, we go get a shot.”
Humans are uncomfortable when we can’t explain the world around us, and that’s due to the fact that the world around us is explainable. And that fact cannot be accounted for in Mr. Gleason’s worldview. A video series on that can be viewed here.
“Like Carl Sagan said: ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,’ not just piddly-poo evidence of prayer working.”
Let’s also not forget the begging of the question. Who gets to determine what an “extraordinary claim” is? That is a worldview dependent statement. It presupposes the truth of one’s own worldview without first proving it to make the claim, while simultaneously needing the truth of another’s worldview to make the claim in the first place.
“Show me one supernatural event in the past 12 billion years to the beginning of our galaxy development. We don’t see anything supernatural happening. We see majestic things, but we can explain them naturally.”
So Jesus said to him, “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe.”
The third and final problem with this is his unwillingness to define what it would look like to “show” him something that happened in the past. Without assuming Gleason believes all Christians own time machines, what would it mean to “show” him a miracle “12 billion years ago” or somewhere in between? It would require evidence outside of his ability to see it with his own eyes. And the Scriptures attest to those past miracles (which happened much sooner than 12 billion years ago), but He rejects the Scripture’s testimony. Since no other work from antiquity is as reliable as the Scriptures, that means his presuppositions simply require absolute skepticism about every single historical event that happened prior to the invention of the photo copy. How could we possibly demonstrate something from history when the person who requires it has shut himself off to being able to believe anything that happened in history without seeing it?
This is why Dr. Jason Lisle, has been placing such an important emphasis on the difference between empirical science and historical science. Observational science is not the same thing as history. Thus, how could we even prove that Washington crossed the Delaware to someone who demands “empirical” evidence for the claim? We couldn’t. To a consistent worldview, historical proofs would be sufficient. However, unless Gleason finds Ol’ George’s DNA in the Delaware waters, he apparently can’t believe it (although he probably does).
The Scriptures are our evidence of past miracles. Yet, he doesn’t accept those as evidence. In other words, what could possibly convince Mr. Gleason of the resurrection of Jesus (a supernatural event that occurred 2,000 years ago)? His worldview’s presuppositions completely shut off even good evidence from being offered: and that’s the point. That’s why presuppositonal apologetics is so powerful against evidentialists. It can point that out and dig up the roots instead of picking off the fruit and hoping it never grows back.
Gleason said nothing short of seeing “two moons in the sky” would convince him of God’s existence.
B)” style=”box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;”>suppress the truth in unrighteousness the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-NASB-27949B" data-link="( that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-NASB-27951E" data-link="(E)” style=”box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;”>being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-NASB-27955J" data-link="(J)” style=”box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;”>dishonored among them. lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, <span class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-NASB-27956L" data-link="(L)” style=”box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 22px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top;”>who is blessed forever. Amen.