Flood Morality Debate: The Uniformity of Nature
Updated: Jun 27
Some people try to attack the character of God by judging His judgments, and one of those judgments is the Global Flood of Genesis. What I call the "Flood Morality Debate" is a discussion about this particular topic that took place on a comment thread attached to one of Ray Comfort’s Facebook posts. KD, presumably a non-secular humanist, attacked God’s judgment as immoral and “insanity.” I jumped in the discussion thread and asked KD to reveal the standard of judgment that he is using to judge God. KD admitted that he does not have an ultimate standard of judgment. I asked KD, how can he judge the God of the Bible without an ultimate standard of judgment? Moreover, KD said that he is “…willing to explore what judgment might look like through more than one lens.” In Part 3 of the debate, he also said that he is “…committed to a multiaxial process, not the one axis approach to x.” This is similar to an earlier comment where KD said “I’m committed to a process, not a conclusion.” Humanists often lament the fact that Christians have presupposed beliefs or “conclusions” about many things. Yet, humanists have their own presupposed beliefs and conclusions as well! They just rarely confess it.
As for KD’s “multiaxial process” comment, I responded in Part 3 with the following:
By being committed to a “process,” aren’t you concluding that your process is correct? In other words, by being committed to a “process,” aren’t you also committed to a “conclusion”?
Below is Part 4 of 4 of the Flood Morality Debate.
KH, //Your comments in this thread seem to indicate that you view the biblical lens as a “wrong” lens, and therefore, there must be some other “correct” lens. By what ultimate standard would you judge one lens or another to be right or wrong? Also, are you willing to consider the biblical lens? // The biblical lens is partially a creative process and intent driven. Hence, the abjad, and yet, those who repurposed it. //Yes, I did judge infanticide and genocide as wrong before becoming a born-again Christian. Since humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), it makes sense that we would exhibit some attributes of God such as justice and morality. Even if we do not trust the God of the Bible, we still “know” God’s invisible qualities (Romans 1:18-20). However, without trusting God’s Word, we easily go astray from God’s ways (Isaiah 53:6). For example, there are many people who have no problem with infanticide in various forms, especially in the form of abortion.// Thanks for being honest. //By being committed to a “process,” aren’t you concluding that your process is correct? In other words, by being committed to a “process,” aren’t you also committed to a “conclusion”? // Being committed to a process, not a conclusion, is more about working with methods and through outcome. Hence, it's a journey in flux. May God richly bless your evening and may you enjoy your tomorrows to the max. [smiley face emoji]
“The biblical lens is partially a creative process and intent driven. Hence, the abjad, and yet, those who repurposed it." I’m not sure if I understand what you are saying here. “Being committed to a process, not a conclusion, is more about working with methods and through outcome. Hence, it's a journey in flux.” I think I understand what you are saying…but even methods require presupposed beliefs or “conclusions,” especially in regards to how the universe works. For example, maybe we can say that the scientific method is a “process.” However, even this process requires presupposed beliefs, such as the uniformity of nature: that the laws of physics tomorrow will be the same as they are today, and are the same throughout the universe. We naturally assume or “conclude” that this is the case based on previous experience with the laws of physics. Yet, how do we truly *know* that the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow, next year, or in a far-away galaxy? Interestingly, the uniformity of nature is actually a Christian principle. God created all things (Genesis 1:1, John 1:3) and upholds all things by the power of His Word (Hebrews 1:3). God is consistent (Numbers 23:19), and omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-8). He established the “…laws of heaven and earth…” (Jeremiah 33:25). Therefore, as one creation scientist puts it, “…Under a given set of conditions, the consistent Christian has the right to expect a given outcome because he or she relies upon the Lord to uphold the universe in a consistent way.” —Dr. Jason Lisle in his book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation (Master Books, 2009). Thank you for your kind words again, and for the respectful dialogue.
I checked the discussion thread a day later and did not see any further responses from KD. I’m glad that KD showed some kindness and respect in his dialogue with me.
KD claims that he is not an atheist, but he attacked the character of the biblical God with his own standard of judgment, which is nothing more than personal opinion. He believes in some sort of “God,” but if it’s not the biblical God, then this “God” only exists in his imagination. Moreover, KD’s claim of being committed to a process but not a conclusion is self-contradicting. He must “conclude” that his process is correct. As I pointed out to him in my last post, even common, working processes such as the scientific method are actually dependent upon conclusions. In fact, these “conclusions,” such as the uniformity of nature, are actually biblical presuppositions. In other words, the scientific method works because the Bible is true!
I pray that KD and other humanists (whether secular or non-secular) who happened to read the debate thread will become conscious of their own presupposed beliefs…that they personally “unmask” their own religion of humanism. Moreover, I pray that they seek after the one true God: the God of the Bible.
“You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.”—Jeremiah 29:13 (ESV)