Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

It's time to get rid of the dept of ed entirely


calfoxwc

Recommended Posts

liberal president obaMao used depts as political weapons for the left.

Federal depts have no business running schools around our country.

Let each state run them with it's own dept of ed. That is what they are for.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/07/ready-rep-thomas-massie-introduces-bill-to-eliminate-the-department-of-education/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could agree more except Obama would've had it to do if Ol' Jimbo Carter didn't create it in the first place. Moreover, it's also on the Presidents thereafter that expanded the Department of Education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The country might change, but the "logic" and soundbites don't. "Unelected Bureaucrats" came up a lot during the Brexit campaign. So did a disregard of "experts".

 

Anyway - department of education. Responsible for making sure all kids get a good education. Those kids that conservatives are so concerned about before they're born, but as soon as they enter the world, fuck them, right? And what's the major problem? That schools are 'indoctrinating' children against conservatism? By teaching them to be nice to each other, and facts about things like science. How dare they.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what you're even trying to say here. Normally I follow along with your little 'gotcha' moments where you try to twist what I've said into something you can disagree with, but you've lost me on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris - each state has it's own dept of ed. The national doe is a federal copy of each state.

When the feds run small town schools ,bad things happen. My Wife retired from teaching -

ask teachers now - the amount of paperwork is so outrageous, teachers don't teach

as much as they work to conform to standards that don't take into account

local problems. Like, How does a big school with a big special education program

cope with federal demands for improvement in test scores? Trust me, that doesn't

work. Some special education kids don't retain information until after repetition

over a couple of years to develop their skills. Those kid's scores affect the overall

calcs badly. That's why federal standards are bs. "no child left behind" ended with a thud

because of unforeseen problems in implementation on local levels.

 

Ohio Department of Education: Home
https://education.ohio.gov/
Includes database by school of proficiency test results, expenditures, teachers, students, school report card, related links, department news.
Teachers
Testing Materials - Educator Licenses - Renew a License - ...
Contact
Contact. Ohio Department of Education. 25 South Front Street
Education Jobs
Education Jobs. Search Positions by Region, County or ...
Testing
State Test Updates - Testing Results - Ohio Graduation Tests
Educator Licenses
Educator Licenses ... 877-644-6338 educator.licensure ...
Ohio School Report Cards
District - School - Advanced Reports - Resources - Archives
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what you're even trying to say here. Normally I follow along with your little 'gotcha' moments where you try to twist what I've said into something you can disagree with, but you've lost me on this one.

Sorry I thought it was pretty plain. Seems like you're suggesting that the Department of Education should lead children away from Faith, correct?

Also enforce social engineering? We're promoting particular ideas such as global warming?

If I misunderstood anything I apologize. Maybe I used too broad a brush?

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I thought it was pretty plain. Seems like you're suggesting that the Department of Education should lead children away from Faith, correct?

Also enforce social engineering? We're promoting particular ideas such as global warming?

If I misunderstood anything I apologize. Maybe I used too broad a brush?

 

WSS

I'm saying schools shouldn't promote any faith in particular, that's up the kids themselves and families and whatever. However, it is important to understand the core principals of major world faiths including christianity, judaism, islam, bhuddism, hinduism and probably they should also teach that some people are atheists.

 

They should teach the most up to date scientific theories, particularly those that have a large impact on the world they live in, which yes, would include global warming - which by the way isn't an 'idea'. It's a scientific theory, meaning proven beyond reasonable doubt and agreed upon by the scientific community. I don't want to side-track this into a global warming discussion though.

 

I'm pretty certain if you leave it to state level education boards they will teach christianity and creationism as fact, global warming as a 'hoax made up by the chinese' and 'liberals are all lazy satan worshiping communists' and you end up with, well, no names mentioned, but members of this board.

 

If there are genuinely debatable things to be taught, with no clear answer, teach all sides and allow a rational thought process to take hold, it will serve the kids much better in later life.

 

Things that should also be taught:

- first aid

- sex education

- financial responsibility

- social responsibility

and other stuff useful for life that I don't recall right now. Things like for seniors, how to pay bills, how to get a job etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nope. Keep the feds the hell out of it. A state level is far more efficient, far more responsive

to local districts, and far less apt to become a political weapon of choice for radicals.

And freedom of choice - if you lived in a very hopeless state, like...california, etc...

you can move to another state. Or another school district. On a federal level,

if things go obamao's way, etc.... there is no place to go, no legit way of

hearing your voice heard. On a local level, a community can stop passing

school levies if the school district goes way left in their curriculum. On a federal

level, tax payers have no control, no influence, no say, and school districts

have no control, no say, and there is no competition to keeping school systems

honest and effective.

 

 

http://www.ammoland.com/2017/02/education-crossroads-part-ii/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=e304ef177e-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-e304ef177e-20770865#axzz4Y0ghjWI8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm sure for every one of those horrible Christian School Districts we could find a radical liberal counterpart, ya think?

 

WSS

I'm actually curious to see what a radical liberal school is. Any examples?

 

 

Or are they just communes run by "Free Spirit" and "Wise Owl". You know, your old classmates at theater school.

 

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no doubt that many of my old classmates are left-wingers today. As a matter fact probably most members of my profession.

 

But if you don't believe any schools have a liberal agenda and there's no point arguing about it.

I can't cite chapter and verse I have no doubt some kids are getting taught the global warming will kill us all. Or that we need reparations for slavery and white people are horrible.

 

 

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If there are genuinely debatable things to be taught, with no clear answer, teach all sides and allow a rational thought process to take hold, it will serve the kids much better in later life." Chris

 

 

And I see the liberals as those who refuse to have the debate. Time after time they act like spoiled brats throwing a tantrum in colleges when conservatives come to speak to offer an alternative point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If there are genuinely debatable things to be taught, with no clear answer, teach all sides and allow a rational thought process to take hold, it will serve the kids much better in later life." Chris

 

 

And I see the liberals as those who refuse to have the debate. Time after time they act like spoiled brats throwing a tantrum in colleges when conservatives come to speak to offer an alternative point of view.

This is true and quite contrary to the "logical" doctrines they claim to subscribe to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If there are genuinely debatable things to be taught, with no clear answer, teach all sides and allow a rational thought process to take hold, it will serve the kids much better in later life." Chris

 

 

And I see the liberals as those who refuse to have the debate. Time after time they act like spoiled brats throwing a tantrum in colleges when conservatives come to speak to offer an alternative point of view.

Except it isn't about conservatism though, is it? It's about being anti-gay, anti-Muslim etc. That's why Milo whatever gets protested everywhere he goes, but someone talking about financial conservatism isn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except it isn't about conservatism though, is it? It's about being anti-gay, anti-Muslim etc. That's why Milo whatever gets protested everywhere he goes, but someone talking about financial conservatism isn't.

 

Except it is not all just about Milo...Condoleeza Rice comes to mind who was dis invited to speak at Rutgers.

 

Conservatives not welcome: Liberal speakers dominate college commencements by six-to-one

 

Conservatives are essentially unwelcome on the annual college commencement speaker circuit - when politicians, the famous and infamous don a graduation robe and make a speech. According to the Young America’s Foundation’s annual survey of speakers at the nation’s top 100 universities, liberal speakers dominate the field.

 

Among the top 100 campuses in the nation, liberal speakers outnumber conservatives 6-to-1. Among the top 50, the ratio increases to 9 liberals for every one conservative. And among the elite top 10 universities, there were no conservatives invited to speak whatsoever.

 

On the program at those ivy-covered halls this year: former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick will address Harvard University; Vice President Joe Biden will speak at Yale, former EPA administrator and Obama appointee Lisa P. Jackson will be at Princeton.

Overall, 59 percent of all speakers on campuses this year are liberals, 10 percent are conservatives and the remaining 39 percent have unknown or neutral political affiliations. This bias toward liberal speakers is an established trend, however: in 2014, the ratio was five-to-one; in 2013, four-to-one; in 2012, seven-to-one, the survey reports.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/11/liberal-speakers-dominate-college-commencement-six/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Milo is anti... what?

 

with the left, it's about flaming false narratives proclaimed to

enflame passions for political purposes.

 

If you disagree with Real Marriage being re-defined and destroyed.... you are labeled "anti-gay".

If you disagree with reverse discrimination...or don't agree with any liberal blanket

false narrative, like Trayvon was only 13, and was a really nice kid..... you are labeled

"anti-black". If you don't want all open borders... you are labeled "anti-hispanic/anti-Muslim"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no doubt that many of my old classmates are left-wingers today. As a matter fact probably most members of my profession.

 

But if you don't believe any schools have a liberal agenda and there's no point arguing about it.

I can't cite chapter and verse I have no doubt some kids are getting taught the global warming will kill us all. Or that we need reparations for slavery and white people are horrible.

 

 

 

WSS

 

You brought it up. I figured you had examples of "radical liberal" schools

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope they have some wacky, new age, secular courses there. Like critical thinking.

 

You do know there are scientists of faith? Scientists who are Christians. Many of them in fact.

 

As for critical thinking I see 3 groups of thought on this issue: The atheist, the believers in a personal God, and believers in a God who is impersonal. Of the three the most illogical would be the atheist who cannot overcome the obstacle that out of nothing came creation. Even if an atheist believes that creation started with a god particle, germ or whatever then who introduced that into the equation? Check mate against the atheist view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You do know there are scientists of faith? Scientists who are Christians. Many of them in fact.

 

As for critical thinking I see 3 groups of thought on this issue: The atheist, the believers in a personal God, and believers in a God who is impersonal. Of the three the most illogical would be the atheist who cannot overcome the obstacle that out of nothing came creation. Even if an atheist believes that creation started with a god particle, germ or whatever then who introduced that into the equation? Check mate against the atheist view.

Clearly we will have to agree to disagree on who or what is illogical. I've always thought of myself as an atheist, but I have not truly ruled out the possibility of some form of creator. It's all about proof. If proof is there, it is our job (in my mind) to accept any fact one way or another. The big misconception among atheist is that it is their job to refute religion at all costs, when in fact it is not about that at all. I mean even if a 'god' is 'discovered', that doesn't make any one religion right. So there really is no argument to have. The only thing we can really argue is whether a fact to you is a fact to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly we will have to agree to disagree on who or what is illogical. I've always thought of myself as an atheist, but I have not truly ruled out the possibility of some form of creator. It's all about proof. If proof is there, it is our job (in my mind) to accept any fact one way or another. The big misconception among atheist is that it is their job to refute religion at all costs, when in fact it is not about that at all. I mean even if a 'god' is 'discovered', that doesn't make any one religion right. So there really is no argument to have. The only thing we can really argue is whether a fact to you is a fact to me.

 

I may have posted this before but it's worth reposting:

 

Question: "Is there an argument for the existence of God?"

 

Answer: The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “wish-fulfillment” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.

 

Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.

 

To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”

 

In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:

 

1. Reality is an illusion.

2. Reality is/was self-created.

3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).

4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

 

So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.

 

Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.

 

Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:

 

• Something exists.

• Nothing cannot create something.

• Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

 

Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?

 

To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.

 

Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.

 

Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:

 

• Something exists.

• You do not get something from nothing.

• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.

• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.

• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

 

Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

 

But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:

 

• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).

• He must be powerful (exceedingly).

• He must be eternal (self-existent).

• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).

• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).

• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.

• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).

• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.

• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.

• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.

• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.

• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).

• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

 

These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).

 

One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.

 

Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.

 

This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”

 

So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly we will have to agree to disagree on who or what is illogical. I've always thought of myself as an atheist, but I have not truly ruled out the possibility of some form of creator. It's all about proof. If proof is there, it is our job (in my mind) to accept any fact one way or another. The big misconception among atheist is that it is their job to refute religion at all costs, when in fact it is not about that at all. I mean even if a 'god' is 'discovered', that doesn't make any one religion right. So there really is no argument to have. The only thing we can really argue is whether a fact to you is a fact to me.

Neatly summed up by this section of the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. Audience member asks them...:

 

b8a8164c6139ac935e46bd4a84916a16.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well cal seems to post a few examples of crazy shit going on in the schools a few times a week.

 

WSS

 

1) Those Almost always bend the truth somehow to fit the site's agenda

2) An isolated incident where some kids sang about Obama or whatever does not equal a "radical liberal" school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You do know there are scientists of faith? Scientists who are Christians. Many of them in fact.

 

 

I never said there weren't. I was just repeating your views as you've stated them to me. That kind faith should be taken over critical thinking. Which is the reason why discussing anything remotely scientific with you is a list cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said there weren't. I was just repeating your views as you've stated them to me. That kind faith should be taken over critical thinking. Which is the reason why discussing anything remotely scientific with you is a list cause.

 

 

 

Faith vs. Reason (A Christian perspective)

 

Blind faith: "Biblically, faith is having confidence in something you have not experienced with your senses. Biblical faith is not “blind”; it’s not the act of “believing without a reason.” Just the opposite; biblical faith is the act of believing in something unseen for which we do have a good reason."

 

Reason: is a tool that God has given us that allows us to draw conclusions and inferences from other information, such as the information He has given us in His Word. Reason is an essential part of Christianity; God tells us to reason (Isaiah 1:18) as the apostle Paul did (Acts 17:17).

 

In fact, I could not know that I am saved apart from using reason. After all, the Bible nowhere says that “Dr. Lisle is saved.” Instead it tells me that “if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). I have genuinely acknowledged that Jesus is Lord, and I believe that God raised Him from the dead. Therefore, I am saved. I must use logical reasoning to draw this conclusion.2

 

This is perfectly appropriate and is the kind of reasoning God expects us to use. We are to reason from the principles of God’s Word.3

 

We are never to attempt to reason in opposition to the Word of God. That is to say we are not to treat God’s Word as a mere hypothesis that is subject to our fallible understanding of the universe.

 

This, after all, was Eve’s mistake. She attempted to use her mind and senses to judge God’s Word (Genesis 3:6). This was sinful and irrational; she was trying to use a fallible standard to judge an infallible one.

 

We are never to “reason” in such an absurd, sinful way. Instead, we are supposed to reason from God’s Word, taking it as our ultimate unquestionable starting point. Any alternative is arbitrary and self-refuting.4 Reason is not a substitute for God; rather, it is a gift from God.

 

On the other hand, we are not to reject reason. God is rational,5 and so we should be, too (Ephesians 5:1). We are commanded to seek wisdom and understanding (Proverbs 4:5, 7). God wants us to use the mind He has given us. But He wants us to use our minds properly, in a way that is honoring to Him.

 

Faith Is Necessary for Reason

Biblical faith and biblical reasoning actually work very well together. In fact, faith is a prerequisite for reason. In order to reason about anything we must have faith that there are laws of logic which correctly prescribe the correct chain of reasoning. Since laws of logic cannot be observed with the senses, our confidence in them is a type of faith.

 

For the Christian, it is a reasonable, justified faith. The Christian would expect to find a standard of reasoning that reflects the thinking of the biblical God; that’s what laws of logic are.6 On the other hand, the unbeliever cannot account for laws of logic with his or her own worldview.7

 

Since laws of logic are necessary for reasoning, and since the Christian faith is the only faith system that can make sense of them,8 it follows that the Christian faith is the logical foundation for all reasoning (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3). This isn’t to say, of course, that non-Christians cannot reason. Rather, it simply means they are being inconsistent when they reason; they are borrowing from a worldview contrary to the one they profess.

 

Since reason would be impossible without laws of logic, which stem from the Christian faith, we have a very good reason for our faith: without our faith we could not reason. Even unbelievers (inconsistently) rely upon Christian principles, such as logic, whenever they reason about anything. So the Christian has a good reason for his or her faith. In fact, the Christian faith system makes reason possible.

 

https://answersingenesis.org/apologetics/faith-vs-reason/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I may have posted this before but it's worth reposting:

 

Question: "Is there an argument for the existence of God?"

 

Answer: The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “wish-fulfillment” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.

 

Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.

 

To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”

 

In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:

 

1. Reality is an illusion.

2. Reality is/was self-created.

3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).

4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

 

So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.

 

Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.

 

Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:

 

• Something exists.

• Nothing cannot create something.

• Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

 

Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?

 

To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.

 

Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.

 

Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:

 

• Something exists.

• You do not get something from nothing.

• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.

• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.

• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

 

Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

 

But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:

 

• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).

• He must be powerful (exceedingly).

• He must be eternal (self-existent).

• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).

• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).

• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.

• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).

• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.

• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.

• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.

• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.

• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).

• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

 

These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).

 

One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.

 

Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.

 

This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”

 

So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).

 

First of all, I'm not arguing your position. You're entitled to it, I just don't buy it.

 

1. Philosophy is NOT a science and it never was.

 

2. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, within the science community worth a damn has ever or will ever tell you the universe was created from nothing. It very clearly indicates in the big bang that it all originates from an uber super duper condensed form of matter. If you have matter, you start from something. You can argue how it got there and I'm not inclined to give you suggestions that are 'logically' derived.

 

3. If I ask you "Hey why do ducks fly south every winter?" and you answer "Because that is what they were born to do", I can't say your wrong. But does that ultimately answer my question is the only argument to be made. If 'God' wanted me to not seek out better answers than this, than he should have kept us in the trees with the monkeys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...