You know what really rumbles my thunder? People who challenge God's purpose in the universe. In no way am I referring to the innocent "why" questions of those who humbly seek for answers. I by all means refer to those who attempt to pridefully justify themselves... almost like an atheistic Job.
Everything that happens, happens because God is over all. Regardless of how you view God, He is sovereign. I can accept this. I am willing to accept this. I can't seem to comprehend how all things work together for the good of those who love Him, but I certainly would not want to take responsibility for such a task. I can hardly please several people at once! He is infinite, I am finite. He is sovereign, I am not; and I am okay with this.
Now, when people challenge God's purpose in certain events in humanity (i.e. 9/11, Haiti earthquakes, etc.) as well as in individual lives (i.e. personal troubles, health issues, etc.), a problem turns up. You see, the moment we object to God and His plan is the moment we try to out-holify God. The moment we object to God and His plan is the moment we hold up a standard to God. Where does this standard come from? How does it persist? If it exists, it must exist apart from God; but that is an absurdity, for there is no other standard that is independent of God. We basically assert ourselves as persons who know more, who know better than God.
The problem with that is that we attempt to assert our finite self over a sovereign, infinite Deity. Do you really think that's a good position to be in?
Lately I have been evaluating the debate between Evidentialism and Presuppositionalism. Evidentialism lays claim to God's miracles as in its arsenal of proofs to be used by the evidential apologist. It attacks Presuppositionalism for not using miracles as proofs in that particular apologetic system.
I would like to know what the other madmen/women around here think of this: I think Evidentialism is off base here because, in my mind, it shouldn't consider miracles as evidence. The creation is constantly before us and can be appealed to as a proof that the existence of a creator is necessary (much more could of course be discussed on this issue.) Miracles, however, cannot be duplicated and referred to as evidence. Moreover, and this is my thrust, miracles are a part of the testimony of Scripture and the appeal Scripture is that to which Presuppositionalism is based on in the first place. Presuppositionalism appeals to the testimony of Scripture out of a belief that only it can conquer the suppressed knowledge of God in the fallen man's mind - miracles fall in the category of the testimony of Scripture, not of empirical evidence.
Therefore, Evidentialism is wrong to even consider miracles as proofs in apologetics and certainly wrong for attacking Presuppositionalism for failing to use them.
What say you? Do miracles belong in the category of a) the testimony of Scripture, b) empirical evidence for today's use, or c) both?
It is expected of the younger generation of the masculine gender to play (at least on occasion) some form of electronic game. And why not? These games make supreme conversation starters, set an agenda for meetings with new friends, and are—after all—eminently diverting.
Whenever I consider this matter, I recall what I wrote in my journal on March 3, 2007. I was not wholly easy on the pastime:
The actual time playing blew by even faster than the day—how worthless video games are! The time was wonderful, yet horrible. I was sickened by […] the waste of time in which we were all engaged. And yet it was so terribly fun. They have all been poisoned by it, none less willing than the last. I am tainted, but not taken. These golden years will be spent, but not in that. I will die before I let something so trivial ruin my life. Every time I concede to the open arms of that unclean thing, I shall remember—“not in whole.” The game is Free? No! I have not the time. All who are taken in are fools—and yet I am the greatest fool of all, who knows the evil, yet still returns to the beautiful fiend all to often. Why must it all be so? He who has not tasted of it desires it all the more—to know, to see. He who has tasted is not satisfied. He hungers more, and just when he thinks he has mastered it—it returns. We are all fools! What can be done? I can pray, and He will answer. How, I cannot tell, but the Lord is Holy and Just: every minute wasted in this life shall be held to him [who wasted it]. None shall escape. Dear, that felt good.
Though I’ve never held fully to the sentiments in this tempestuous narrative, I must admit that I had a point.
How easy it is to find oneself among the strongest advocates for scheduling the next LAN Party — but those have one redeeming factor. That of course is the social aspect, without which they would be the pinnacle of imprudence. (Another benefit is being able to listen to opera, but I’m afraid I am among the few who fully take advantage of this.)
What can you show for a single hour spent before the computer playing [game title] with friends? How much less from playing alone! Certainly we have all realized this at one point — generally when some other obligation has conflicted with our gaming habits so that we are forced to make a decision between the two. We initially act upon our disapprobation thus:
Death to the invader! Strike a deadly blow, As an old Crusader Struck his Paynim foe!
Let our martial thunder Fill his soul with wonder, Tear his ranks asunder, Lay the tyrant low!
And often continue thus:
Thus our courage, all untarnish’d, We’re instructed to display; But to tell the truth unvarnish’d, We are more inclined to say, “Please you, do not hurt us.”
“Do not hurt us, if it please you!” “Please you let us be.” “Let us be, let us be!”
Sometimes, I get the sense that we almost fear what life would be without them—is our happiness contingent on them? Are there not thousands of things supremely better? Sitting on the couch thinking is a better occupation than sitting before a computer gaming.
Of course, you should talk, you say. I don’t pretend to be unaffected by this phenomenon. Once I figured out how to run in single player mode a particular game left over from a LAN party, I proceeded to waste more time than I care to recall on it. I finally took out a righteous rage on it and deleted it completely.
If other things seem less enjoyable, perhaps it is on account of the dulling of our senses rather than their realization of something better. Banging your head on a mattress won’t seem quite as painful once you bang your head on a door a few times, though perhaps baning your head on the mattress was far better. (Lame illustration, but that’s what came off the top of my head.)
But even if gaming doesn’t conflict with school, family, church, or anything else—if we have an hour of the day which need not be spent in any particular pursuit—even then, is it not a waste? Squandering precious hours on what is less than nothingness.
Waste: to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail or profit; squander: to waste money; to waste words.
Wuld my argumentes sond moore connyncynge in Middel Englyssh? Ywis, Ich finde the thoght yeveneth me gret plesire. Yf shreuehede ist too seveere, these games shoud lest-wis be consydered unadvisede.
You know what really crumbles my cookie? Naturalists who hold to any value – whatsoever. Values are completely antithetical to pure Naturalism. (I just may break some sort of record for question marks in this post.)
We have all considered the ultimate problem for the naturalist: the origin of morals. What is right and what is wrong? Some hold that the society or community is the authority on what is right and wrong. The problem is then, how does the community decide what is right and what is wrong? Some hold that right behaviors are those which aid in the continuation of the propagation of the human species. Okay. We have arrived at another problem the naturalist cannot sufficiently answer.
Why is the propagation of the human species a good thing?
For a naturalist to say that the human species should even continue is odd. It is odd because they are ascribing value to a merely physical process. They are saying that the physical process of a human being begetting another human being is a good thing. If the universe is merely physical, if everything is just chemical, then who cares if a human organism lives or dies? Who cares if the all the planets in the universe contain life or not? I would challenge a pure Naturalist to give a reason why anyone should live or die.
People generally love their children. Why? Is emotion merely a chemical reaction? Do I love my daughter because she shares a certain chemical I do and those similar chemicals are attracted to each other and the chemicals in our bodies express themselves as what we interpret as love? Why do I love my wife? Do we have similar chemicals? We are not blood-relatives, after all. Would the Naturalist say that since we share a common ancestor way back, that is why we may share a similar chemical? Why then would I hate one member of the human species and love another? Why do some people hate their children or their parents? What about preference? Why does someone like the color red and another like the color blue?
A true naturalist says that everything in the universe is merely physical. Should I care if a rock is moved from place to another? Should I care if water evaporates? I may care about that because I enjoy moisture returning to the sky so it can rain again, water some crops, and ultimately allow food to be put on my table. But why should I care if I eat? What does it truly matter if a person lives or dies, if everything is merely natural? I cannot for a second care whatsoever that Jupiter is constantly blasted by violent storms; it doesn’t affect me. If something affects a human toward a positive benefit, then the human must be valuable. How can anything be valuable in pure Naturalism?
To avoid the argument, a naturalist may quickly say, “It doesn’t really matter.” But deep down, they don’t really believe this. They don’t really believe a random person should be murdered and they wouldn’t be bereft of grief if their mother died. Naturalists are incredibly contradictory to their worldview and they don’t even know it; this is my lament.
Just like the creationist’s argument that there has to be an unmoved mover somewhere upstream, there has to be an author of morality somewhere upstream. We cannot create our own values if Naturalism is correct. In fact, the mere concept of values should be considered ridiculous. Just as spontaneous generation of organic life is impossible, so is spontaneous generation of morality. There really are very few pure Naturalists because those who consider themselves as Naturalists do not understand what that worldview necessitates – a complete lack of values of any kind.
So to reword my assertion – values cannot exist in pure Naturalism. In fact, the existence of values held by humanity is a proof against Naturalism.
Excursus
Keep in mind that most evolutionists seem to assume they are Naturalists.
A member of PETA might go so far as saying that humans should just up and die so the animals can have reign of the earth. But if it would be good for humanity to die, it would also be good for the animal kingdom to die. After all, animals kill far more animals than humans do. I know they would say we are less worthy of life because we are the only species who kills for sport. But this does not get around the problem of pure Naturalism because killing for sport would not be bad at all if everything is merely physical. This same member of PETA would be distraught if a human loved-one of theirs dies. This would be inconsistent with a Naturalist worldview.
A staunch environmentalist might say that the human race should be severely decreased so the earth can be saved from “global warming.” But yet again, what does it matter which climate the earth is saddled with if everything is merely physical?
I ask so many questions in this post because I challenge the pure Naturalist to answer them without being contrary to their own worldview.
