The most common question from nonbelievers: “What is your evidence?”
The reply: You don't get to ask for evidence without first demonstrating what grounds logic in your worldview to even evaluate evidence in the first place.
Also, empiricism holds that all knowledge comes from sense data. Because the proposition itself cannot be verified by sense experience, it violates its own rule. By the logic of empiricism, if a proposition cannot be verified by sense experience, it cannot be known to be true.
At the end of the day, debating the existence of God comes down to worldviews and paradigms. Simply throwing verses and dabbling in empirical data isn’t very effective. You don’t need to do any of that, you only have to merely point out how a worldview falls into absurdity without God. It’s a proof via reductio ad absurdum, that God exists by the impossibility of the contrary.
All secular worldviews no matter what label they carry, in some way shape or form, participate in intellectual theft. Whether they swap God out with another label, attempt to reduce God to some impersonal force, it’s all borrowed capital because secular worldviews are inherently, rationally bankrupt. People using logic or believing it is useful, is not a justification for logic. Logic requires a justification for a coherent worldview, because every argument presupposes rational thought. Secular worldviews love objectivity when they’re attacking God, but they immediately flee to subjectivism the moment they are asked to explain their own foundation.
The laws of logic are invariant, immaterial, and universal. Therefore, they can only be grounded in God, not localized to a human mind or object, because logic is a reflection of God, rather than bound by it. This is why Christ is referred to as the Logos.
If logic is descriptive rather than prescriptive, it would inevitably become localized, shifting, and ultimately arbitrary. If the laws of logic are not immaterial, invariant, and universal, then what material are they made of, what geographic location are they limited to, and what day of the week is the Law of Non-Contradiction scheduled to change?
To object to the existence of God strips you of the logical right to form an objection against God because any rational objection requires the tools that an argument against God would destroy. All rational thought goes out the window and with that, science itself.
Once this is established, the reason God would be the Triune God is because the Trinity accounts for the One and the Many, reality is both. If you have "many gods" without an absolute, cohesive singular mind, you have chaos. The gods will have differing wills, distinct natures, and clashing authorities, Absolute Truth is lost. If you reduce everything to just a generic "One" where individuality is an illusion, diversity is lost, and personality disappears into a blank slate.
You don't prove the Resurrection by using human history. You use the Resurrection to prove that human history has any meaning at all. You aren't putting Christ on trial before the judge of secular history. You are putting secular history on trial before the Resurrection.
There is no better and more coherent worldview, than the Christian worldview.
The reply: You don't get to ask for evidence without first demonstrating what grounds logic in your worldview to even evaluate evidence in the first place.
Also, empiricism holds that all knowledge comes from sense data. Because the proposition itself cannot be verified by sense experience, it violates its own rule. By the logic of empiricism, if a proposition cannot be verified by sense experience, it cannot be known to be true.
At the end of the day, debating the existence of God comes down to worldviews and paradigms. Simply throwing verses and dabbling in empirical data isn’t very effective. You don’t need to do any of that, you only have to merely point out how a worldview falls into absurdity without God. It’s a proof via reductio ad absurdum, that God exists by the impossibility of the contrary.
All secular worldviews no matter what label they carry, in some way shape or form, participate in intellectual theft. Whether they swap God out with another label, attempt to reduce God to some impersonal force, it’s all borrowed capital because secular worldviews are inherently, rationally bankrupt. People using logic or believing it is useful, is not a justification for logic. Logic requires a justification for a coherent worldview, because every argument presupposes rational thought. Secular worldviews love objectivity when they’re attacking God, but they immediately flee to subjectivism the moment they are asked to explain their own foundation.
The laws of logic are invariant, immaterial, and universal. Therefore, they can only be grounded in God, not localized to a human mind or object, because logic is a reflection of God, rather than bound by it. This is why Christ is referred to as the Logos.
If logic is descriptive rather than prescriptive, it would inevitably become localized, shifting, and ultimately arbitrary. If the laws of logic are not immaterial, invariant, and universal, then what material are they made of, what geographic location are they limited to, and what day of the week is the Law of Non-Contradiction scheduled to change?
To object to the existence of God strips you of the logical right to form an objection against God because any rational objection requires the tools that an argument against God would destroy. All rational thought goes out the window and with that, science itself.
Once this is established, the reason God would be the Triune God is because the Trinity accounts for the One and the Many, reality is both. If you have "many gods" without an absolute, cohesive singular mind, you have chaos. The gods will have differing wills, distinct natures, and clashing authorities, Absolute Truth is lost. If you reduce everything to just a generic "One" where individuality is an illusion, diversity is lost, and personality disappears into a blank slate.
You don't prove the Resurrection by using human history. You use the Resurrection to prove that human history has any meaning at all. You aren't putting Christ on trial before the judge of secular history. You are putting secular history on trial before the Resurrection.
There is no better and more coherent worldview, than the Christian worldview.
Last edited:
