Blame and Praise Debate: Demonstrate
Updated: Feb 15
In my previous post, I shared Part 1 of 5 of a debate that I call the “Blame and Praise Debate.” Humanist blogger Hemant Mehta and his supporters claim that there is a contradiction in the Christian worldview when Christians praise God for good things, such as the saving of a life, but do not blame God for bad things, such as physical harm or loss of life. I pointed out their egregious misrepresentation of the Christian worldview, and challenged their own worldview with a question regarding the law of non-contradiction. I received responses overnight from humanists DG, OJ, JS, and AH. I responded to all four the next day.
Rather than sharing the discussion strictly in order, I will share the humanist comments one at a time, along with my reply. This is for the purpose of readability. In Part 2 of 5 of the debate below, I am sharing DG's comment along with my reply.
Kevin Hadsall 1. Demonstrate your god exists. 2. then we'll talk....
I'm going to split my responses into separate posts. First, I will start with [DG]: your own presuppositions present a demonstration. When you “demonstrate” something, you presuppose preconditions for intelligibility that make sense only in a biblical worldview. God created us in His image (Genesis 1:26) giving us the ability to study the universe in which He set the laws (Jeremiah 33:25) and upholds on a consistent basis (Genesis 8:22, Hebrews 1:3). Here are three questions for you: (1) if your brain is the byproduct of random chemical processes through the process of evolution, then how can you ever trust your own conclusions to be accurate? (2) In your atheistic, evolutionary worldview, how do you account for the presupposition that the laws of nature will be the same tomorrow as they are today (in other words, why wouldn't the laws change if the universe is random)? (3) Can you empirically “demonstrate” aspects of your own worldview, such as life evolving from non-life, the gain of genetic information/complexity in an organism (e.g. a blind organism evolving eyesight), or *something* coming from *nothing*?
Notice that DG’s response is really just a red herring…a distraction from the original topic. Sometimes I choose to ignore red herrings, but sometimes I also find value in responding to such comments. I did not see any response back from DG.
As for my reply, I believe that the presuppositional argument regarding the preconditions of intelligibility (laws of morality, laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature) is irrefutable. To learn more about that subject, I highly recommend the Ultimate Proof of Creation by Dr. Jason Lisle.[i]