My friends! My followers! I have a mission that you all must carry out. Read on and discover your mission…
While facebook-surfing I discovered that a facetious friend of mine had joined a group called 100,000,000 Christians Worship God!
The Discussion Board over there is definitely a whole lot o’ fun. You get your Christians preaching hellfire, your Christians preaching pity for the ‘poor atheists,’ and your reasonable Christians saying “isn’t doing good on this planet more important than worshipping Jesus?” (but those in the last category don’t seem to be the most well-represented on the site). There are also some asshole atheists with half-arguments who are doing a poor job of representin’, yos.
I know you all don’t have time to wade through all the discussions, so I thought I’d repost the topic that was, far and away, the most ridiculous piece of windbaggery ever posted to that group.
Challenge To Any Non-Christians
This may be long, cheers to anyone who perseveres in reading it.
So here’s the way I see it. We all accept basic presuppositions as foundational to our evaluation of the truth. What I mean by this is that everyone either presupposes the Christian truth or the person presupposes the non-Christian truth; boiled down more simplistically, someone either presupposes that God is who He says He is in the Scriptures, or someone presupposes that God is not who He says He is in the Scripture. The Christian theist, if they are actually consistent with their own confession, will maintain that all facts are predicated upon God, “WHO IS” (Colossians 1:17; Acts 17:28).
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
This means that even the fact of God’s own existence is predicated upon God Himself, if it were not then a fact would exist outside of God and the Christian God would not actually be who He says He is. Antithetical to this is the non-Christian thought that there are *at least* some facts which exist independently of God. This means, the non-Christian thought is going to make man the ultimate reference point in all their thinking. This is evidenced in the philosophy of the Rationalists, the Empiricists, and really, in any post-Kantian thought. For the non-Christian thought, the autonomous man, is the final reference point. This is what I see as one of the fundamental differences between the Christian and the non-Christian (Genesis 3:15). So what we get when we discuss Christian vs Non-Christian is not an argument about the facts (we both agree there are laws and factual truths) but rather, we argue whose methodology is most correct, the Christian’s or the autonomous man. Here then is the clashing of worldviews, here then, is the great war of presuppositions. Consequently, this means that no one starts from a neutral point of view, all of our arguments have presuppositions. Therefore, I see no reason why the Christian must feel bullied into accepting the non-Christian’s starting point, after all, the non-Christian cannot levee strong support for why their presupposition is better than the Christian’s presupposition.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
But to further this thought I maintain that all people reason in circularity. What? You might ask. Anyone who has taken a logic 101 course knows that is wrong. But it’s not. The starting point, the method, and the conclusion are always involved in one another. What I mean by this, is that anyone who challenges the existence of God is already beginning from the non-Christian presupposition, after all, the consistent Christian will maintain that every fact is predicated upon God, so the “fact” of God’s non-existence is an impossibility. So the non-Christian challenges the Christian to show them “proof” for God’s existence. But no amount of proof should ever suffice because the non-Christian is already convinced of his non-Christian presuppositions. Otherwise, the Christian should be able to prove God’s existence by any known fact, such as, the sun rises because, all facts are predicated upon God. To advance this thought, consider if I ask the non-Christian why he believes he is autonomous? The only authority the non-Christian will be able to use is himself, thus using his own autonomy to prove his own autonomy, that’s circular reasoning! Or the Rationalist, ask they why reason is the ultimate authority and they should have to reason to that conclusion, or reach their conclusion through another means thus denying the very thing they are trying to prove. Or lastly considered language. If I ask someone to prove to me the validity of language, that is, how do we know language actually relates truth, they should have to answer with language. They are using language to prove language. Unless of course, they want to say that we don’t know and give into a life of skepticism and irrationality, which would be no fun. It’s all circular!
What I am getting at is that I cannot figure out why the non-Christian presuppositions are “better” than the Christians. Of course, being a Christian I clearly see why my presuppositions are better. I have an objective authority, I have an objective standard, I can have universals, continuing laws, unity in diversity, and so forth. But the non-Christian can not, for everything is based on his own autonomy which means everything is merely conventional. If everything is conventional than everything is relative. The non-Christian cannot escape that. But I suppose for any “rational and smart” non-Christian this should not make much sense. Well, I don’t expect it to. The Wisdom of God is the foolishness of men.
If you keep reading the discussion that followed (no, no, God no!!!) you’ll see him get challenged by someone asking how this isn’t just an argument for theism in general rather than Christianity specifically, and the boy responds with “I didn’t elaborate because most people haven’t the slightest background in those discussions.” I might just have to call a Doctor – the flood of Stupid Philo-Junk may have given me some sort of disease.