As shared in in my previous blog post, humanist JJ2 challenged me with the following comment:
Kevin Hadsall, How is it possible for us humanists to get a clue as to the origin of god if not enlightened by the willfully ignorant, delusional, faith driven believers who cannot and have never provided one iota of empirical evidence? Science teaches that if you don't know the answer, keep working on it. Religion teaches that if you don't know the answer, god did it, so don't question it. 🙂--JJ2
However, since someone deleted the thread, I was unable to publicly respond. Instead, I sent JJ2 a personal Facebook message. Below is Part 2 of the Vindication Debate, which only consists of my response to JJ2.
I was about to respond to your comment, but it appears as though [DA] deleted his thread. I can’t find it anymore. With that being said, below is my response point-by-point. Although you used ad hominem attacks against “faith driven believers,” please know that my answers are provided with sincerity and respect.
“How is it possible for us humanists to get a clue as to the origin of god if not enlightened”
First, if you are talking about the God of the Bible, there is no “origin,” since the biblical God is eternal. Second, to repeat my question (since I haven’t seen anyone attempt to answer it), how can you possibly be “enlightened” in your worldview if your brain is the outworking of random chemical processes over eons of time? However, the idea that you can be “enlightened” makes sense in a biblical worldview. God’s Word says that you are made in His image (Genesis 1:26), and therefore, you have the ability to pattern your thoughts after God’s thoughts (Ephesians 5:1). God is the author of rationality/logic, and He is the Truth (Isaiah 1:18, John 14:6). Your attempts to reason and logic make sense in a biblical worldview, but not in an atheistic, evolutionary worldview.
“…by the willfully ignorant, delusional, faith driven believers…”
This is just an ad hominem attack.
“…who cannot and have never provided one iota of empirical evidence?”
The fact that you are borrowing biblical concepts (as noted in the paragraph above) is evidence of the biblical God. You are forced to “borrow” from the Bible while trying to argue against it. It’s kind of like trying to argue against the existence of the laws of logic while using laws of logic…it’s self-refuting. With that being said, are you an empiricist? Do you believe that we can only “know” testable concepts? If so, then how do you test the very concept of empiricism? Empiricism is self-refuting as well.
“Science teaches that if you don't know the answer, keep working on it”
“Science” does not teach anything, that is the fallacy of reification. People are the ones who “teach.”
“Religion teaches that if you don't know the answer, god did it, so don't question it”
What religion are you referring to? And can you substantiate your claim?
I’m going to bed, so if you respond, it may be a day or two before I get to reply. Have a good night!
At the time of writing this blog post, I have not received a response. I also did not receive any confirmation that he even saw my message. Perhaps he does not use Facebook Messenger. Therefore, it’s possible that one day he may randomly stumble upon my message.
Even if he never reads my message, drafting my response was good practice. Engaging in these debates helps me step out of the “comfort zone,” exercise the “faith muscle,” and learn how to proclaim God's Word to non-Christian audiences.