www.jasonlisle.com

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

It may help to recognize that the spiritual inability of unbelievers to repent (without God’s help) is self-imposed. They reject God’s offers of mercy and salvation, but not because of any physical inability. Rather, they have absolutely no desire to repent because they hate God’s law and they love their sin. Jesus says as much in John 3:19-20.

And so the analogy of someone with Down’s Syndrome being imprisoned because he cannot act normal is not fitting because such a person does desire to behave normally, but is physically unable to do so – the opposite of the situation with unbelievers. They do have the physical ability to obey God’s law and even to repent, but they have absolutely no desire to do so because they hate God’s law and love their sin.

A better analogy is a violent murderer who has been repeatedly offered forgiveness if only he will repent and stop murdering. But he doesn’t repent because he hates people and just loves murdering them. Is the man able to stop murdering? In one sense, yes, because his choice to murder is free and not due to external compulsion. But in another sense, no, because he will do what he desires, what he freely chooses: to murder. His spiritual inability to repent is self-imposed because he loves doing what he does. The conviction and capital punishment of such a wicked person would certainly be fair. Likewise, unbelievers do have a choice, and it is genuine. The problem is that they will choose to reject Christ every time because it is what they want – unless God changes their heart. Unbelievers do not end up in hell because they have no choice, but rather because they do have a choice and, left to themselves, they will always choose hell (Psalm 14:2-3).

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

An unknown hypothetical cannot justify anything. And so when someone says, “Perhaps in the future, some other worldview besides Christianity will allow for the possibility of knowledge,” one possible reply would be: “Then in the future, that worldview could be considered rational. But right now, only Christianity can justify knowledge.” Of course, no such worldview will be discovered in the future. But my point is that appealing to the unknown can never justify a positive belief. It’s irrational to say, “I have a great reason to believe in space-aliens, and that reason is this: someday in the future, somebody might find some evidence of them.” Present (true) beliefs must be justified by present reasons if they are to be considered knowledge.

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

Actually, to reject God’s Word is the height of arrogance – as if your mind is in a position to judge the Almighty’s Word. However, God is in a position to judge everyone’s character. It is God who claims that everyone knows Him, but many suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-20). If you disagree, then you are claiming to be smarter than God

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

In the Christian worldview, morality can be defined apart from punishment and reward. What is morally good is that of which God approves. There is nothing in that definition by itself that necessitates punishment or reward. However, God is also fundamentally just/fair. And for that reason, God will punish evil and reward good. And it is morally right for Him to do so. (And there is nothing wrong with God warning people about eternal punishment or eternal blessings in order to help induce appropriate behavior in our sinful state.)

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

The founding fathers of our nation were, for the most part, Christians. And so when they referred to “religion” it was always in the sense of the Christian faith.

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

Ultimately the source of all social ills is not evolution, but sin. When people rebel against God’s laws, we all suffer. Evolution, however, gives people a way of rationalizing their sin by giving them an excuse to reject Scripture. Therefore, as people increasingly embrace evolution, we expect to see as a general trend an increase in social ills such as school violence. However, a number of schools do allow criticism of evolution. And creationists are having a greater influence than in the past. Therefore, we might expect to see social ills decrease as people begin embracing Scriptur

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

Regarding 2 Kings 2:24, we need to recognize that God judges the wicked. The critic might say, “But that judgment is too severe.” My reply is, “By what standard?” The critic has no basis for making any moral judgments at all. In his view, the two young men who were killed in 2 Kings 2:24 were simply chemical accidents. Besides, bears have to eat. Why does the critic complain that the Lord provided the bears with a full meal that day, rather than letting them starve? The fact that the critic values the lives of the people more than the bears shows that he really knows the biblical worldview is true. His criticism against Scripture is self-delusion.

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

governmental authorities should stop excessively taxing their citizens to fund programs that God has not authorized. It is a sign of apostasy when a government takes more in taxes than God has us tithe (e.g. 10%)

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

Tony, morality is about “what should be,” not “what is.” You are trying to explain why people do behave in a particular way (because it benefited their survival in the past). But that doesn’t explain why we should continue to behave that way today. First, you are arguing that “right” is what achieves a particular end – in this case, the survival of the most people. But that presupposes that such an end is itself morally commendable. In a Christian worldview, yes, people have innate value to God and are worth saving. But in an evolutionary worldview, how would maximizing the survival of a bunch of chemical accidents be morally commendable? Is it also morally commendable to maximize the chemical reactions taking place in a car engine? Should we try and create as many internal combustion engines as possible since this is morally right? So you are stealing from the Christian worldview when you presume that people have innate value.]

[Second, even if I grant that people have intrinsic worth (which makes no sense on your system), it would still lead to absurd results. If maximizing the survival of people is what determines morally right, then we should outlaw all extreme sports (sky-diving, car-racing, etc.) since these sometimes result in fatalities. In fact, if you really believed that maximizing human survival was what determines “right” then you would want to restrict as much human freedom as possible in order to accomplish this, e.g. along the lines of the robots in “I Robot.” It would be against the law to not have children. etc.]

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

It is not possible because you’d have to use your mind and your senses to evaluate which one “works” better. And the rationality of your mind cannot be justified if it is merely a chemical accident, nor can the reliability of your senses be justified if they are too. There is no reason to trust a chemical accident to be truthful about anything

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

God has distributed wealth according to His will (1 Samuel 2:7), and to redistribute it by force would be contrary to His will and to His decree. This also means that it is fundamentally immoral for government to redistribute wealth. God has not authorized the government to do that. Rushdoony’s book answers a lot of these types of issues.

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

The Bible tells us that all people have a sin-nature. We don’t want the Bible to be true, and so we argue, and we get a second opinion that is more conducive to the way we want to live. But that doesn’t change the facts. That the issue is truly settled is evidence by the lack of any cogent counter-argument. Namely, non-Christian worldviews simply cannot account for the existence and properties of laws of logic, morality, or induction. And some of the more honest philosophers have admitted this

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

Thoughts are correlated with physical events, namely synaptic activity in the brain. But that doesn’t mean that thoughts are merely synaptic activity in the brain, or that thinking ultimately comes from the brain, even though the brain is involved in thinking while we are alive. From a Christian perspective it is easy to show this. For one thing, we will continue to have thoughts even after death – after our brain ceases any activity at all (Luke 16:22-25). Logic cannot be material because it is not extended in space; you cannot see, hear, taste, touch, or smell logic. It’s not physical.

In the Christian worldview, we can have things like logic because we allow for non-material things to exist. God Himself is non-material. Logic is the way that God thinks. And since we are made in God’s image, our mind has awareness of logic and a limited ability to use logic to reason.

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

It is analytically true (true by definition) that God is good. Good is defined as that which corresponds to God’s will. Any alternative definition leads to absurdity.

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

In the secular worldview, why should a person love his neighbor (one chemical accident) more than a can of motor oil (another chemical accident)? In a secular worldview, would it be morally commendable for a person to sacrifice his own life to save his grandmother - and if so, why?]

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

In your worldview, aren't your wife and children merely non-designed chemical accidents, like motor oil? Isn't love just a chemical reaction in your brain, no different in principle than hate? If someone else decided to hate his wife and children and brutally torture them, do you think that would be morally wrong? And if so, how can you justify your belief

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

If God were not logical, and if the Bible really did have any inconsistencies, then what would be the basis for saying that inconsistency is wrong? The law of non-contradiction is epistemologically rooted in the self-consistent nature of God. There is no rational basis for it otherwise. Thus, to accuse something of being wrong on the basis of inconsistency is to assume the truth of the Christian worldview

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

God is never arbitrary. He always has a good reason for what He does. Sometimes He allows us to understand the reason. (But He is under no obligation to share that reason with us.)

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

But one of many problems here is that apart from the Christian worldview you have no basis for believing that anyone has a moral obligation to be honest (or to be anything for that matter). And thus it makes no sense for you to criticize God or anyone else for allegedly failing to be honest. In the Christian worldview, we are morally obligated to obey our Creator. And God is truth and has commanded us to emulate His character - hence we ought to be truthful. In the Christian worldview we can discuss whether God has specified any qualifications or exceptions where it would be morally right to deceive. But such conversations would be meaningless apart from the Christian worldview because morality is meaningless apart from the Christian worldview

Show post

John #fundie jasonlisle.com

I always find it curious that secularists and evolutionists attribute fairness and scientific superiority to anyone who argues their side. They have determined their worldview and interpret everything they find in light of it, twisting everything to fit. I is sort of like the media – what doesn’t fit is not reported, and what is reported is so slanted as to be meaningless. I have followed creation thinking for over fifty years, and I find creationists to be far more willing to admit if they were scientically wrong than evolutionists. Tat. To be expected, because those who believe in a creator know they are accountable to the creator. Those who are agnostic or atheistic have no oral compass, so lying is justifiable to achieve their end, which to make everyone cel berate their idea du just. The rank hypocrisy is galling – we see it in politics, in the pathetic old-earth evangelical blogs, and in e pseudo-scientific community that clas every debate they are losing is somehow ove

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

[if you believe slavery to be immoral you are a moral relativist, so then let me ask you does God approve of slavery, is it morally acceptable]

The ironic thing about your claim Tony is that it makes no sense on your worldview. Moral absolutes just do not comport with a chance universe, where people are just chemical accidents. Your question is only meaningful in the Christian worldview, which shows that in your heart-of-hearts you really do know God. Yes, the type of slavery advocated in Scripture (helping an irresponsible person get out of debt by paying all his debt and training him to become financially responsible) is morally right. But apart from the Christian worldview, the phrase "morally acceptable" is fundamentally meaningless. You again demonstrate the truth of Christianity by the very questions you ask.

Show post

Micah #fundie jasonlisle.com

if God is not the objective standard for right and wrong then that would mean there is a higher standard than God which is impossible since there is nothing greater than God.

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

you haven't answered how you can have objective morality apart from Christianity. When your army commander tells you to advance, you advance. When he commands you to fall back, you fall back. Are you being consistent if you consistently obey your commanding officer? Of course. God is perfectly self-consistent, and whatever He does is morally commendable. Whether you emotionally like it or not is logically irrelevant. After all, in your view, your opinions are just chemical reactions in the brain - why should that have any merit at all? Why should baby-killing be fundamentally wrong in your view? You keep arguing as if human beings have intrinsic value, as if they have been made in the image of God and are valued by Him. But that makes no sense if people are chemical accidents like a can of oil

Show post

Chris H #fundie jasonlisle.com

Hell is not a threat, it is the return address that these envelopes called our bodies are mailed with. (born with.) The Postmaster offers to change that return address free of charge, He will even pay the new shipping bill for you! People go to Hell because they do not accept the payment for that return address, it is as simple as that. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, and so the redeemed have no fear of hell, because we have been rescued from it, and that change of return address is permanent, Christ is unwilling for any of those He has been given to be lost.

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

Any scientific theory that leads inescapably to a consequence that is untrue, is itself untrue. If evolution were true, there could be no objective morality. But there is objective morality. Thus, evolution is false

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

As I have shown in the book "Ultimate Proof of Creation" only Christian theism can account for the preconditions of intelligibility. For example, no polytheistic religion can account for objective morality because which god's decrees should we follow? The gods of other faith systems cannot account for uniformity in nature for a number of reasons. For example, it is the biblical God who transcends time (2 Peter 3:8), has all power (Genesis 17:1, Genesis 18:14), who knows all things including the future (Isaiah 46:9-10), has revealed Himself (Romans 1:18-20), and has promised to uphold the future like the past (Genesis 8:22). All these things are necessary in order to have justification for uniformity in nature, and no other god fulfills all these

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

If you have invented these gods for argument's sake to prove a point, then it is obvious that they cannot account for the preconditions of intelligibility, since reality (intelligibility) cannot be justified by fiction (invented gods). If you want to argue that one of these gods is real and you sincerely believe in him/it, then we can discuss why competitors cannot account for the preconditions of intelligibility based on their nature. As one example, you have said that your gods are not a trinity. Thus, they cannot account for the one-and-the-many, the way the biblical God can. Moreover, there is no objective revelation from these gods. In order to account for all the preconditions of intelligibility, your alternative god would have to be identical in all respects to the biblical God, in which case it would have to be the biblical God, as John rightly stated. But such a conversion can only take place when you concede that you do sincerely believe in such a god, since a fictional god cannot logically justify anything

Show post

JasonLisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

Oh the irony! In your worldview, children are merely the inevitable result of chemistry. Why would you care what they are taught… unless of course you secretly believe that children are made in the image of God and therefore have intrinsic value? And yes, you have severely misrepresented the Bible; but what is worse is that you continue to do so even after I have pointed this out and listed the verses that contradict you. Of course, there is no reason for you to behave morally on your worldview, so this isn’t surprising

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

My argument is that morality is meaningful (regardless of whether you or anyone else finds this desirable/undesirable), that morality could not be meaningful apart from the biblical God, and therefore God exists

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

"Subjective" means it depends on the individual person, and so is different for different people. In contrast, "Objective" means independent of the individual person, and so it's the same for all people. When a person comes up with opinions of how things "should be" there is no reason for it to be morally binding on others. After all, other people can come up with different systems. It's subjective. If God were merely a very powerful individual as you've suggested, the situation wouldn't change much. But God is actually the Creator of all that is. He is sovereign. And He is the Judge. All people will answer ultimately to God, and hence His rules are necessarily objective. They are the same for everyone, and binding on everyone because we all owe our existence to God and will answer to Him. Clear?

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

In your worldview, pain and suffering are simply chemical reactions taking place in a bag of chemicals. Why would that be wrong? When baking soda reacts with vinegar do you get upset? Do you say that it is morally wrong? Your view of morality does not comport with your view on origins. In my worldview, people have intrinsic and objective value, since they are made in the image of God. It is because the Bible is true that we can call pain and suffering "bad." In the evolutionary view, they can never be more than chemistry.]

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

: Whether people want to consciously consider epistemological questions, whether they profess that knowledge is possible or not, they nonetheless have knowledge. And this is because they are made in God’s image, and God has revealed some things to them. However, it is true that no philosophical system besides Christianity has been able to account for knowledge – to provide rational justification for the preconditions of intelligibility. One of these preconditions is induction – something that David Hume recognized that he could not account for in his secular worldview. No one else has fared any better. Now, if people don’t want to play the game (e.g. “I don’t care if my beliefs are rational”) that’s fine. But then they cannot complain when others point out that they are being irrational

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

How do you know your revelation is valid?

[Jason Lisle:we can know that the revelation is from God because any alternative would make knowledge impossible]

so again you are claiming omniscience, since the only way to know any alternative would make knowledge to be impossible is of course if you yourself where omniscient!

[Dr. Lisle: Only God is omniscient. And He cannot lie. Therefore, revelation from Him is absolutely certain. The argument is sound and does not require omniscience of people.]

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

That is a whopping big misrepresentation of the presuppositionalist claim. The argument is not "we don't know, therefore God." Rather the argument is based on what we do know: laws of logic are universal invariant entities which govern all correct reasoning in this universe, and laws of nature describe and prescribe the relationships within this universe such that we can predict future states given sufficient knowledge of the present. What worldview can make sense of this knowledge? We find that only the Christian worldview can. THAT is the presuppositional claim. Any alternative leads to the absurd yet inescapable conclusion that we cannot know anything. Ironically, it is the atheist claim that is an appeal to ignorance: "There must be some naturalistic explanation for laws of logic / laws of nature, etc. After all, no one has proved the reverse."

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

I affirm that God is omniscient. He knows all things because truth is that which corresponds to His mind. And God is the one that makes the claim that knowledge must begin with Him (Proverbs 1:7). He is certainly in a position to make such a claim since He is omniscient. God knows all the alternatives, and He has told us that knowledge is only possible in Him (e.g. Colossians 2:3). Without these facts, we couldn't know anything at all

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

You need to keep in mind that death is not the same thing as annihilation. God has never destroyed/annihilated any person He created. People are God’s creation and thus belong to Him. It is His moral right to take them when He deems fit. Now you ask why would God take a baby? Of course God does not answer to you; He is not obliged to tell you His reason, but He always has one because He is ultimately moral. We could speculate. One reason might be that God knows the future that the child would have had in this world, one leading perhaps to great wickedness that God has mercifully decided not to unleash on the world, nor the greater eternal torment for the child as a result of such wickedness. You may not emotionally like the way God rules His universe, but there is nothing illogical or immoral about it as you had claimed. You are not in a position to evaluate whether God had sufficient moral reasons for His actions because (1) you are wicked not righteous, and thus your view of morality is necessarily distorted, (2) you cannot see the “big picture” – only God has all knowledge, and (3) you have no basis for any sort of objective morality apart from God by which you could judge Him

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

What is the logical reason in your view that thinking beings have rights? Why would that be the case in a chance universe? When you are unconscious, and not really thinking, do you cease to have rights? Having “rights” is a moral truth. But how can you have morality in a chance universe apart from God?

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

If our senses are designed by God to probe the world, then aside from a detrimental effect of the curse, we can trust that they will be basically reliable. If on the other hand our sensory organs are not designed at all, but just chemical accidents, then it makes no sense to trust that they would ever be reliable. It would make no more sense than trusting in a magic 8-ball.

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

But let's put that aside for the moment and consider a (non-biblical) scenario in which God alone hardened Pharaoh's heart. Suppose that God in this instance chose to override Pharaoh's freedom of choice. Would that prove that people in general have no freedom of choice? Of course not. You have committed the hasty generalization fallacy. If God wants to override the freedom of choice that He gave people in the first place, He can do that. (I'm not suggesting that He does, only that He can.) But how does that in any way suggest that people don't have freedom of choice at other times? So your argument just doesn't make any sense. In the Christian worldview, people have some degree of freedom of choice. In the secular worldview, what one chemical accident does to another is predetermined by the laws of physics.

Show post

Josef #fundie jasonlisle.com

The Bible also provides the foundation for modern science. In order to even be able to do a scientific experiment, we must be able to rely on our senses, rely on logic, uniformity of nature and an objective moral standard. None of these comport with the atheistic worldview. As an evolutionist how do you know your senses are even reliable? How do you know you can rely on logic as the correct way of thinking? In a random chance universe how do you explain uniformity of nature? And how do you explain objective morality? If you don’t think there is an objective rational standard for morality, then why are you here condemning Dr. Lisle for you consider to be lying?

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

We know God is honest from the impossibility of the contrary. If God were not honest, we couldn’t know anything at all. Thus, you would not even be able to post on my blog.

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

Dave MC:If you had been born in Yemen, would you be preaching Islamic presuppositionalism?

Dr. Lisle: No such thing. Nor is there atheistic presuppositionalism, or any other except Christianity. The presuppositional argument can only prove Christianity, because it works by the impossibility of the contrary, showing how non-Christian worldview would make knowledge impossible.

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

You have two options: you can be irrational, and continue to believe in uniformity and logic despite having no logical reason for them; this is akin to a child believing in the Easter bunny. Or, you can repent and embrace the Christian worldview, which will give you rational justification for the properties of laws of logic and uniformity in nature. Hypothetically, you could try to come up with some other justification for uniformity. But all who have tried that have failed rather spectacularly.

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

Why in the secular worldview should we suppose that our mind has the capacity to be rational? Rationality involves choice; we consciously consider the various options and then choose the best. But in the secular worldview, the brain is simply chemistry – and chemistry has no choice. Chemicals always react according to prescribed laws of nature. In the secular worldview, there is no more reason to trust a human brain than there is to trust in reading tea leaves. Both are just the inevitable result of chemical reactions.

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

Should we trust that our senses are basically reliable? Not in the secular worldview. According to evolution, our sensory organs are merely the result of accidental mutations – those that did not decrease our survival value and were therefore not eliminated. Some people might suppose that our sensory organs are reliable because they have survival value. But this does not follow logically. Chlorophyll has survival value in plants; but this does not imply that chlorophyll reliably informs the plant about the outside world.

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

In the Christian worldview, death and suffering make sense; they are a partial taste of the punishment we all deserve for our high treason against God. It’s a wonderful example of justice. A better question would be, “Why is it that only some people suffer only some of the time, when we are all wicked sinners?” The answer involves God’s mercy. Remember, God only punishes the wicked (with one exception – and He volunteered).

Show post

Micah #fundie jasonlisle.com

I clearly stated I intend to be a hypocrite? Where was that exactly?
Also, from an evolutionary perspective, why is being a hypocrite a wrong? In a chance universe where we are nothing more then chemical reactions, why bother even making a moral claim? Why is it that hypocrisy should be considered wrong? Who gets to decide that and why?
Let me put it this way, if evolution were true, then any moral claim or thought would just be the result of random chemistry in the brain. But how does someone determine if chemistry is good or bad? An evolutionist doesn’t get angry when vinegar reacts with baking soda and yet that is just random chemistry. You see, evolution can never justify morality, because morality requires a standard higher than ourselves. This is why evolutionist must borrow concepts like right and wrong from Christianity, its just impossible to justify it within their own worldview.

Show post

Micah #fundie jasonlisle.com

Evolution is unscientific for many reasons.
1: There is no evidence for it.
2: It fails to provide any rational basis for things necessary for science. For example, there is no basis to believe in uniformity in nature from an evolutionary perspective. Why does the universe behave in a consistent way that we are able to predict? You may say that the universe always has behaved consistently so it always will, but this is just assuming what you are trying to prove. Evolution cannot provide a rational reason to believe in unchanging laws of nature, it can neither account for the reason that like conditions will produce like results, why, in an ever changing universe do certain laws feel compelled to stay the same. If these laws weren’t consistent then we could never do any scientific experiment, and yet, evolution cannot provide any basis for why we should believe these laws will stay the same. It may sound like im repeating myself a lot here but thats because this is a very important point. Evolution cannot provide any basis for science whatsoever.
3: It contradicts the Bible, which does provide a rational basis for believing in uniformity. The Bible states that the universe is upheld by the power of God, and God never changes, so we can expect that certain laws will never change either. Therefore the Christian has a rational basis for doing science, the Evolutionist, has none.

Show post

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

Since God has made Himself inescapably known to all men, it just isn't true for a person to say that he or she is not convinced of God. Many people don't want to believe in God, and they work very hard to convince others and even themselves that they don't believe in Him. But their actions always reveal their suppressed knowledge of God.