Social Justice Warriors are Fools

It’s interesting that social justice warriors (of the radical variety) will plead to us to not link Islam to terrorism because we will just cause more terrorist attacks, yet they are quick to attack Christians who voted for Trump as “white supremacists. 1” According to their logic that they use for dismissing ties between Islam and terrorism, they ought to realize that by attacking Christians as “white supremacists,” they are emboldening “white supremacists” and making the problem worse. Maybe it would be better if these people would just shut up.



    Trump’s Immigration Ban is not a Muslim Ban

    Iranian officials and a host of other people are criticizing President Donald Trump for his executive order that suspends immigration from countries that are considered terrorists hot spots. Some are saying that it is a Muslim ban, and the hashtag #muslimban has been trending on Twitter. It is surprising that so many people are falling for this claim. It is as if people are only reading sensational headlines from websites that are antagonistic towards Trump or if it is something else.

    Regardless of why people are calling this a Muslim ban, the label is easy to refute. There are many other countries who have Muslims that are still able to migrate here such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, India, etc. All three of these countries have at the very least a significant population of Muslims. The point, however, is that if any Muslims are still allowed to enter the United States, the notion that Muslims are banned from coming here is false. Furthermore, the ban on these 7 countries is not contingent on whatever religion they may espouse. If one were to read the executive order, it is clear that the ban is temporary and that there are instructions to come up with an effective vetting process so that refugees who are admitted are ones who will love america instead of trying to destroy it. Some have argued that Christians should not act on fear but also on “love.”

    The problem with this proclamation is the the definition of “love” is ambiguous and in some instance overlaps with what one might say is “careless.” 2 Chronicles 14:7 reads, “And he said to Judah, “Let us build these cities and surround them with walls and towers, gates and bars. The land is still ours, because we have sought the LORD our God. We have sought him, and he has given us peace on every side.” So they built and prospered.”  2 Chronicles 14 praises Asa for doing what is good in the sight of the Lord. It gives a list of some of the things that Asa did (given the context of the passage, God has told us that all of these things are listed were good things). One of these things was building a wall because God had given them this land. The walls that were built by the children of promise (the Jews) in the Bible are associated with security. Because God saw Asa’s overseeing the building of the wall a good thing, it is clear that Christians are not obligated to let anyone into their country that wishes to come in. Because God does not oblige us to do so, such an action cannot be contributed to “love” as the Bible defines it. God would not praise an action that is unethical. It also follows that if God permits us to keep people who may harm us out of our country with a wall, keeping people out of our country with a ban on immigration is not unethical either.

    A Debate with an Empiricist

    A friend of mine posted a rant about how some people profit off of the prosperity gospel. I left a comment and was then told (by the friend that wrote the original post) that there is no evidence for God. I started asking for definitions but my friend did not seem to be in the mood to go back and forth with me. Soon after the exchange, another guy jumped in and attempted to engage me. What follows is a part of the conversation. This atheist attempted to answer my request to define “evidence” and then went on a diatribe against Christianity. Since he was snarky, I gave it back to him two fold. 1  He did respond back, but he responded by assuming that which I requested him to demonstrate. Because of this, I saw no profit in further engagement with him. I have not proof read this exchange so there may be spelling and grammar errors.

    Atheist: What he is asking for is the same concept as “evidence based practice” in the medical field… implementing medication where medication is used based on the best available research on the medication regarding how and why it works, clinical expertise and then last, the individual’s and clinic’s preferences. In other words… science based evidence.”

    Response: “Science-based evidence” does nothing to prove the truth of a proposition. There are several reasons that I will give here (among many others) why what you and Andrew are seeking is inefficient:

    1. The scientific method reasons from effect to cause. By doing so the syllogism that is used for the method is constructed in a way that is considered a logical fallacy. This logical fallacy is called “affirming/asserting the consequent.” The fallacy is constructed like this:

    1. If P, Q.

    2. Q.

    3. Therefore, P.

    In the case of a scientist that is researching a medication and its effects, there is a notable example that anyone who is well read in the philosophy of science would be familiar with. A while ago, there was an epidemic virus that killed many cows. Scientists scrambled to find out what was causing all of these cows to die. They developed a vaccine to cure the cows. The cows in the controlled group didn’t receive the vaccination. All of them died. The cows in the experimental group received the vaccination. All of them lived. While this epidemic was still a threat, it was common for the cows to receive the vaccine, but there was one lazy bum that didn’t use the vaccine. Instead, he injected the cows with water. It took quite a while for people to find out because the cows that received the water injection still lived. After it was discovered that this man was using water to cure the cows, scientists tried a different experiment. The controlled group did not receive the water injection and the experimental group received the water injection. All of the cows in the controlled group died and all of the ones in the experimental group lived. Next, they tried injecting the cows with air. They got the same result. What cured the cows? No one knows, but they found out that the vaccination was not the cure that they thought it was. Sure, the vaccination worked, but they have no idea why it worked considering the results of the subsequent experiments that were mentioned.

    2. The problem of induction is an issue that empiricists still have not managed to surmount. If you are going to assert that science is of epistemology benefit, you are going to have to resolve this problem. The problem is, given the truth of the premises, the conclusion can still be false. If you cannot demonstrate that the conclusion that follows from true premises in an inductive syllogism is true, it follows that the scientific method cannot demonstrate the truth of any proposition.

    3. Another insurmountable problem for empiricism is the problem of causation. How can an empiricist demonstrate that a cause and effect that they observe really does have any causal relation without assuming so in the first place? To assume it would be to beg the question, yet the empiricist cannot argue for this necessary principle without begging the question.

    4. An empiricist must answer the two following questions:

    A. How does one get a perception from sensory data?

    B. How does one get propositional truth form sensory data?

    I have never seen an empiricist answer either of those questions successfully. Without answering the four problems I highlighted, your empiricist epistemology will collapse into epistemological skepticism.

    Atheist: Christians often base their belief on two things… emotional evidence and the Bible.

    Response: You have never spoken to me before, but you are assuming that I am going to provide “emotional evidence (whatever the bloody hell that means)” and “The Bible (what is wrong with that anyway?),” you are only showing your own prejudice against my position by assuming what I’m going to do. If you only operated based on “scientific evidence,” you would have at least waited and heard me out before throwing out these unreasonable generalizations.

    Atheist: “The Bible is the foundation of Christianity and so therefore must be observed for contradictions to evidence, history, and simple logic. If it stands up to criticism… then it must be a unique book. But if the supporting evidence is contrary to what the Bible states then alas, the Bible cannot be taken anymore than fiction book mixed with legend like Hercules in ancient Greek legends.”

    Response: The gathering of “evidence” is an inductive process. If you cannot resolve the problem of induction that I listed earlier, your methodology for testing the truth of propositions fails. If you are seeking to validate a position on the basis of “logic” you must first resolve why you have chosen a position that cannot deal with the philosophical problems that I listed. No amount of evidence can demonstrate the truth of any proposition whether it be “Christianity is true” or “Darwinian evolution is true.” If you claim to adhere to logic, you must accept that the way you are approaching ‘truth’ is fundamentally flawed. If you don’t accept it or don’t care, then any critique of contradictions, lack of evidence, etc. is of no consequence. You would be nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black.

    Atheist: As for the emotional aspect… emotional experiences cannot be taken as proof of anything except to the individual who experienced them… but even then they are hardly evidence. A logical and well studied individual would realize emotions are the least factual based type of supporting evidence an individual has due to how often our brain lies to us and how illogical emotions can be.

    Response: I want you to read this slowly. I will type it in all caps so that you hopefully do not miss this point. ALL EXPERIENCES ARE ONLY EXPERIENCED BY THE INDIVIDUAL THAT HAS HAD THE EXPERIENCE. What you call “emotional experience” is no different than the way “experience” is typically defined. Even if a group claims to have the same experience, they cannot know that others have had the same experience because experience is always on an individual basis. The conclusion that follows from this is that all of the scientists that do tests to try to confirm their hypothesis are, by your definition, using “emotional evidence” to support their hypothesis. The argument you are using here collapses your own position.

    Atheist: “Let’s look at the Bible then… since emotional evidence isn’t even a concept we can consider.”

    Response: Bye bye, empiricism!

    Atheist: The Protestant Bible is made up of 66 books which contains the Tanakh and the new testament. Let’s be clear, the Tanakh is not a Christian’s book… not to be offensive but it is the book of the Jews… and they will say that too.

    Response: It is up to the individual that is labeling something as “Christian” or “not Christian” give their definition. Since I am the Christian in this discussion, it is up to me to define my position rather than having the antagonist define it for me (that would be rather senseless). I define Christianity as the propositions that are contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Bible defines “Christian” as someone who is of the church body (Acts 11:26). Moreover, the Westminster Confession says regarding Jesus Christ and justification:

    The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man’s nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin;[11] being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man (Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter VIII, Section II).

    Now, what is important to note is that the truth of your claim does not rest in semantics. It rests in propositions. If the propositions of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Old Testament are in agreement, the Old Testament is a Christian document. You see above that the Westminster Confession speaks of Christ coming down as a mediator. If one were to look at the Old Testament carefully, he would find that the Jews of the Old Testament had a well-developed Christology. The prophet Isaiah wrote in Isaiah 53:

    “Who has believed our message
    and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
    2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
    and like a root out of dry ground.
    He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
    nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
    3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
    a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
    Like one from whom people hide their faces
    he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
    4 Surely he took up our pain
    and bore our suffering,
    yet we considered him punished by God,
    stricken by him, and afflicted.
    5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
    he was crushed for our iniquities;
    the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
    and by his wounds we are healed.
    6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
    each of us has turned to our own way;
    and the Lord has laid on him
    the iniquity of us all.
    7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
    yet he did not open his mouth;
    he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
    and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
    so he did not open his mouth.
    8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.
    Yet who of his generation protested?
    For he was cut off from the land of the living;
    for the transgression of my people he was punished.[b] 9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
    and with the rich in his death,
    though he had done no violence,
    nor was any deceit in his mouth.
    10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
    and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
    he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
    and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
    11 After he has suffered,
    he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e];
    by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many,
    and he will bear their iniquities.
    12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g] and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h] because he poured out his life unto death,
    and was numbered with the transgressors.
    For he bore the sin of many,
    and made intercession for the transgressors.”

    The Jews of the Old Testament were fully expecting the Messiah (who would later be revealed as Jesus Christ) would come down, and suffer without resistance for our sake so that our transgressions would be forgiven. And we also have a very well-known verse from Isaiah 9:6, “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

    When we look at the Westminster Confession and the Old Testament, there is nothing but agreement between the two. If you are aware of somewhere where they differ, feel free to point it out. If you are going to claim that there is some disagreement, you have to know where that disagreement is. If you do not know where that disagreement is, your claim is baseless. The examples I gave is by no means exhaustive. If you were to ask me to lay out a full case for the Old Testament being “Christian,” there would be so much material to share that I would likely never finish. It is easy to go to Google and find claims about the Old Testament (or as some call it, “the Tanakh,” but it is up to you to show me what parts of the Old Testament are not Christian documents.

    Atheist: Translating the Tanakh into modern English that is understandable has been a great accomplishment and very complicated at the very least. However the difference we can say between the Old Testament and other books that have been translated from ancient times is that those who translate it don’t believe whatever it is those writings are telling them to be absolute truth. They understand that often times ancient peoples wrote things based on oral traditions that were passed down over time and changed from the original translations. But that is just an assumption… so we can’t use that against the Bible. What we can use are the historical inaccuracies, and blatant contradictions in the Bible.

    Response: There are no sources cited here. Who are you referring to specifically? What time period? This tirade reeks of conjecture. Unless you can demonstrate your claim, there is no need to bother with addressing it.

    Atheist: “The contradictions are easy to find… a simple Google search will reveal hundreds of contradictions in both the old and the new testament.”

    Response: This sentence should read “The contradictions are easy to find…a simple Google search will reveal a hundred of CLAIMED contradictions in both the Old and New Testament.” Just because Google finds websites that clam that there are contradictions does not make it so. You can also find websites that claim that vaccines do not work, the earth is flat, etc. Just because the a proposition is on the internet does not make it true.  Of course, one could also do a little diligence and search for responses to the claims that you have laid out concerning contradictions. Unfortunately, you do not give any mention of the numerous resources that address ‘alleged contradictions’ nor do you give any reasons why you do not think that the answers that Christians have been giving for the past 2000 years are not sufficient.

    Atheist: For example: Was Jesus to inherit David’s throne? The messiah according to the Jews was not only expected to inherit David’s throne… but also when the messiah comes he will be recognizable to all as the messiah and there will be no controversy on the planet as to who the messiah is… even among non-believers. That is not the case with Jesus. Jesus was highly contested and even to this day a vast majority of individuals do not believe that Jesus is a man/god combination that is both 100% man and 100% god thus 200% of somethingishness…ness. (Luke 1:32, 1 Chronicles 3:16, Jeremiah 36:30)

    Response: Luke 1:32 does not give any specific timeline for when Jesus will inherit the throne of David. Remember, the law of contradiction concerns two mutually exclusive propositions being true in the same time and in the same sense. Jesus not inheriting the Throne of David during his time on earth is not a contradiction. Jesus Christ will inherit the throne of David in the future after he returns to rule over his eternal kingdom (Revelation 10:1-20). When he takes the throne at that time, his authenticity to the Throne of David will not be in dispute. Quite simply, the interpretation you have laid out is incorrect because it fails to take into account other propositions that are contained in the scriptures. If you think my interpretation is flawed, I challenge you to show me why it is incorrect.

    Concerning the hypostatic union (Jesus being man and God) I do not blame you for bringing up this one because the many of the responses given by many in the church to what I consider to be the most difficult problem in theology are horrendously executed. The reason why many attempts to resolve this problem have failed is because many theologians have failed to define important terms such as “person.” Proverbs 23:7 reads, “or as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.” Based on this verse, which is the most clear verse we have concerning what the Bible defines a ‘person’ as, the definition of ‘person’ is a group of connected thoughts and propositions.  As the Apostle Paul describes in Philippians 2:1-8, “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” Based on what is given of this passage, and based on what I have said prior, there are several conclusions that should be drawn that alleviates the allegation of contradiction concerning the hypostatic union:

    First, ‘personhood’ and ‘nature’ are terms that have not been defined by most of the theologians that tried to deal with the allegation of contradiction. Second, it is clear that the unification of these two natures consist of a moral element (I will get back to this later). Third, when Jesus came to earth, the hierarchy was temporary adjusted.

    Now that I have listed the three crucial conclusions that ought to be drawn concerning this problem, I will state my position. A person is the group of thoughts and propositions that are possessed. Though he was heir to the Throne of David, he still acted as a servant. He was like man in that he possessed propositions that a man would typically possess. He was like God in that he possessed propositions that God would possess. Though Jesus was himself under the Law at the time he came to earth, he also maintained the authority of God while on earth. The former proposition is of a man, the latter proposition is only possible if Jesus was God. Therefore, we have an example (among) many of unity in Christ being man and God. The key is that one should not look at the hypostatic union as being separate. Rather, they should simply be distinguished. All in all, the word ‘nature’ should be dropped in this description all together because it only leads to confusion and the term is too broadly used. 2

    Atheist: Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus as the messiah? Yes and no. (John 1:32-33, Matthew 11:2).

    Response: The answer is ‘yes.’ John 1:32-33 is a passage where John the Baptist proclaims Jesus as Messiah. In Matthew 11, John the Baptist found himself in a terrible situation, yet he heard about the deeds of Christ. John the Baptist sent one of his disciples to ask Christ if he was the Messiah. It is clear that John the Baptist had a moment of doubt because his servant was sent to ask if he should wait for someone else (concerning the coming of the Messiah). The question is, did John the Baptist recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah or not? The answer is yes. Aside from John 1:32-33, we know that even in that passage John the Baptist believed in his heart of hearts that Jesus Christ was the Messiah because Jesus Christ praised John the Baptist after John the Baptist’s servants delivered his question to Jesus. The Bible does not speak well about those who reject Christ (Revelation 21:8, 2 Corinthians 6:14-18). Because John the Baptist was praised by Jesus Christ, it is clear that John the Baptist had recognized Christ as the Messiah and that the question that was asked was only asked because John the Baptist had a brief point in time where he struggled with doubt. The proposition described in these passages are not mutually exclusive, and therefore, not a contradiction.

    Atheist: Or infamously… did Judas die from hanging from a tree and having his guts spill out? or did he die by killing himself?

    Response: Again, a contradiction occurs in logic when one claims that two mutually exclusive propositions are both true. Judas hung himself (Matthew 27:3-8) and he fell and his guts spilled out (Acts 1:18). Neither of these propositions are mutually exclusive, therefore, it is not a contradiction.

    Atheist: There are hundreds of contradictions that can be labeled and like I said, a simple google search will reveal them.

    Response: Yes. I am sure you could, but that would be very lazy on your part. If you are going to point out contradictions, at least take the time to check and see if there is actually a contradiction before attempting to argue with a seminary student about it.

    Atheist: Now on the subject of Jesus. Is Jesus the man god? Well I would have to say more likely that Jesus did exist… as a man… but that over time his story transitioned like Hercules to that of a legend.

    Response: Please demonstrate your claims.

    Atheist: The earliest that Jesus was mentioned in any writings at all was about 40 years after his death.

    Response: That is incorrect, but more importantly, you have looked at all of the writings within forty of years of Jesus’ death? Considering that we do not have all of the writings that were written in that time frame, that is not possible. You are only repeating what you have heard from others which is a far cry from the logical, empirical, method that you said that we all ought to have followed at the beginning of your elephant hurling.

    Atheist: The last of the gospels (John) was written about 100 years after Christ’s death. If we look at the gospels chronologically, the first gospel hardly has any mention of Jesus’s miracles. The second one mentions a few but John’s… John goes all out and mentions all sorts of miracles that were never mentioned in the others as well as twisting some of the stories. This is a perfect example of how a legend begins and transitions over time.

    Response: I have lost count of how many times I have heard this one. The tricky thing with this objection is that it is not possible to demonstrate precisely when something was written due to the inductive nature of historical investigation, but there are parts of the Gospel of John that were found that are believed to be between 35-45 years of Jesus’ death. And guess what? The copies that were found are no different than later copies from the 4th century. If you know of any copies that show a change over time (as is usually the case with developing legends) feel free to inform me. Otherwise your criticism is only informed by baseless speculation.

    Furthermore, The Gospel of Mark, despite its short length, attests to the divinity and miraculous acts of Jesus Christ on multiple occasions. For instance, Mark 2:5 has Jesus forgave the sins of a paralytic, and only God can forgive sins. This means that the Gospel of Mark attests to Jesus being God.

    Atheist: Did you know Hercules was a real person? He actually did exist and most likely wasn’t a man god either that did all his miraculous things. But the most logical explanation isn’t that magic exists… it’s that over time as oral tradition passed, the story also changed.

    Response: False stories do not make true stories false. Furthermore, I disagree with your claim about ‘magic (whatever that means).’ What makes ‘magic’ more logical than oral tradition? Logic only has to do with the science of necessary inference. The content of the propositions only determine whether an argument is sound or not, but it is not logic that determines the soundness of propositions. Logic only determines whether an inference is valid or invalid. This is Logic 101.

    Atheist: Eventually miracles were added, stories of feats that are inhuman were added and thus we have the modern story of Hercules just like we have the modern story of Jesus.

    Response: The conclusion that Jesus’ story evolved over time does not follow from an appeal to the development of the story of Hercules. If you disagree, present me with a valid syllogism that demonstrates that the conclusion does follow.

    Atheist: Then there are Gnostic gospels… that is an entirely different topic as there are quite a few of them. But the point is… the early church couldn’t even agree as to what books were real and what books weren’t.

    Response: Good lord. Your objection is so vague that I cannot even begin to give a proper response until the following questions are answered: How do you know this? What do you mean by the ‘early church?’ What books did they think was canon? Where was the disagreement? How do you know what the early church thought about what books were true and which weren’t? Have you done research on this or are you just repeating what you have read/heard from sources that are antagonistic to Christianity? Next time, think about what a source is claiming before you use it.

    Atheist: It wasn’t until the Roman emperor Constantine had some kind of fetish for Christianity that the modern Bible was established and the Gnostics and other “holy books” were hunted down and destroyed and murdered.”\

    Response: You are referring to the Council of Nicaea. According to the transcript of the meeting (yes, we do have it), the Council of Nicea did not meet about what books were supposed to be in the Bible nor was there any mention of a decree to burn books that were deemed heretical. If you disagree, demonstrate your position.

    Atheist: If we look at how the Bible came to be, how many times it’s been re-translated, how many times the Christians argued what books were and weren’t supposed to be Holy and just how long it took for anyone to give a shit about Jesus to begin with… we can argue that the Bible is made up of a bunch of letters written by people who quite literally didn’t know what they were talking about as they copied stories from oral translations that were given to them by other people… and stories twist by the tongue.

    Response: Step back and think about this argument. If you are going to bring up disagreement about a topic as an argument against a position, it destroys your own position. For instance, if there is disagreement about what the truth is, then any position that claims to have the truth is false. You better think twice about the arguments you use because if disagreement on a position means that a particular position is false, I only have to appeal to disagreement about what truth is in order for me to argue that the position you are arguing for (which you claim is true) is false. As they say, “two can play at that game.”

    Nevertheless, I will address your objection directly. What do you mean by ‘Christians?’ You are throwing terms around, but you are not giving any definitions. Since I am the Christian, I will define the term (I already did earlier in our discussion). Your other objections are just a summary of objections that I have already refuted earlier in this discussion.

    Atheist: The most infallible argument is the age of the Earth.

    Response: Infallibility is typically defined as being unable to be wrong. This is not how the scientific method is meant to operate. Science is always tentative.  That is why it is always changing. Therefore, the ‘age of the earth’ is not an ‘infallible’ argument for someone like yourself who espouses an empirical epistemology.

    Atheist: “The reason I say this is infallible is this… if Adam and Eve didn’t exist and didn’t commit the original sin, there is no need for Jesus to exist at all as original sin doesn’t exist at all.”

    Response: So, you are saying that the argument is infallible because you are assuming that my position is false? Wow. At least your objection is transparent.

    Atheist: The burden of proof is actually on Christians. First they have to prove their holy book (the Bible) is truly the words of a deity who created the entire universe and that they (and they alone) know what is going on in that deity’s head.

    Response: The Christian epistemology begins with the axiom, “The Bible alone is the Word of God written.” In other words, the truth of the Bible is a proposition that follows via a valid inference from the axiom I just gave. Before you object, keep in mind that both mathematics and logic are constructed in this way. If you reject the way I approach my epistemology, you will also have to reject both logic and mathematics. The theorems that are deduced from the Bible prove that the Bible is true (for instance, 2 Timothy 3:16).

    Atheist: Second, they have to prove their deity even exists to begin with…

    Response: Genesis 1:1. You’re welcome.

    Atheist: and there really isn’t any evidence scientifically of a deity except emotional experiences.

    Response: The Guth-Borde-Vilenkin theorem suggests that the universe could not have be past eternal. The notion that the universe does not be past eternal means that either a deity (such as the Christian God) created the universe or that the universe came from nothing. Any attempt (and there have been many) to straddle between the universe having a beginning and it being past eternal will result in a contradictory position.

    The Anthropic Cosmological Principle also suggests that life operates within a very narrow scope of parameters that involve 33 (I think) constants that are all independent of each other. The notion that the universe does not be past eternal means that either a deity (such as the Christian God) created the universe or that the universe came from nothing. Any attempt (and there have been many) to straddle between the universe having a beginning and it being past eternal will result in a contradictory position.  John Barrow and Frank Tipler listed 10 steps of human evolution. EACH of these steps are so improbable that by the time ONE of them were to occur, the sun would no longer be a main sequence star and would have already incinerated the earth.

    Of course, while all of this sounds good, it is subject to change due to science’s tentative nature. No amount of scientific evidence proves any proposition to be true. This is why I prefer arguing deductively from scripture. I prefer dealing with ‘proof’ rather than ‘evidence (you don’t seem to know the difference).’ Proof demonstrates that a proposition has to be true whereas ‘evidence’ only suggests that a position is “probably true’ or ‘probably false.’ Since we are in a discussion about whether or not Christianity is true, ‘evidence’ is useless in this conversation.

    Atheist: Emotional experiences aren’t proof to anyone except the individual.

    Response: I’ve already covered this, but I’ll briefly state it again. All experience is only experienced by the individual. If “emotional experience” is not a valid argument for the truth of a proposition, neither is ‘experience’ itself. This would, of course, render the scientific method absolutely useless for you in this conversation because the scientific method’s basis is experience. Foot, meet mouth.

    Atheist: If God spoke to me right now and showed himself to me and I came to know him… I still would have no evidence to anyone other than myself. How can I prove that I actually spoke to a deity? I cannot…it would only be my word alone that the entire world must believe me. A human’s word is simply that… people not only make up all sorts of stories all the time to get attention and money, but some people are so insane they fool themselves into believing they saw their dead grandma talking to them for 5 hours telling them to murder their grandchildren.

    Response: Yes. Because, as you have already unwittingly admitted, ‘experience’ doesn’t prove anything.

    Atheist: Thirdly, if they prove a god even exists… they have to prove with actual historical and archaeological evidence that Jesus not only existed without a doubt but that he did all the miracles that are mentioned in the Bible.

    Response: Historical investigation does not operate with proof. Therefore, your request is impossible. If one must prove history in order to be able to demonstrate it, no part of history can be known.

    Atheist: The Bible alone isn’t evidence… it is the religious book that is being tested to begin with.

    Response: Axioms do not need to be demonstrated. Everyone must start somewhere, if you haven’t started, you cannot begin. If axioms must be demonstrated, you must also reject the axiom of logic and mathematics. This would, of course, destroy your own position because you cannot estimate the age of the earth (remember your “infallible” argument?) without mathematics and you cannot argue from one inference to another without logic. Also, if you reject my axiom, I will just reject yours.

    Atheist: That would be like a scientist proving evolution because Darwin wrote a book about it over 100 years ago… instead presenting the millions of fossils that contribute to evolution research, genetics that show we are all interconnected to every species, geology and nearly all life and rock specimen on this planet that presents evidence outside of Darwin’s claims.

    Response: The same scientific method you appeal to also points to the statistical possibility of Darwinian evolution (see The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John Barrow and Frank Tipler). Nevertheless, it does not matter. Science cannot demonstrate Darwinian evolution for the same reasons why science cannot demonstrate that Christianity is true–Science cannot demonstrate the truth of any proposition. If you disagree, you will have to solve the philosophical problems that I listed at the beginning of my response to you.

    Furthermore, the ‘tree of life’ for evolution is in constant flux. You have no way of knowing when those who espouse Darwinian evolution has it right. Whatever version of evolution they are parading around now is only tentatively accepted until it is once again changed. You may think this of little consequence, but it is actually devastating. How can one defend a position when it could be thrown out tomorrow?

    Atheist: The thing is… the Bible isn’t presenting “proof” it’s presenting a claim.

    Response: If we are talking about demonstrating the truth of a claim by arguing deductively via valid inferences, the Bible presents many proofs.

    Atheist: There is a huge difference. Christians make a claim “God exists and you have to follow my version of God or you will go to an imaginary fire place for all of eternity and burn in agony… but my god somehow loves you and he sent his son who is himself to die for you to save you from himself… er I mean yourself… did I mention God created everything even hell?” you see? There is a claim there… not evidence. If you can present clear evidence not just any god… but YOUR version of a deity exists… then by all means I’ll convert this very day. Otherwise the burden of proof is on ya’ll.

    Response: I presented proof and have also pointed to conclusions that scientists have drawn that are in agreement with what the scripture already teaches. I have gone above and beyond what you have requested. The rest of this section just repeats mistakes that I have already addressed. Now that your position has been decimated and Christianity has been proven, will you live up to your end of the bargain?


    1. For those who don’t like ‘snark,’ please note that this blog is called the ‘Rabid’ Clarkian Blog. You have been warned.

    2. I do not believe that Gordon H. Clark held to this exact position.


      Debate: Is there Evidence for God? An Example of an Atheist’s Dogmatism.

      I saw an atheist ask the question, “Is there evidence for God?” on Eric Hovind’s public Facebook page. I had a little time, and I love to discuss the nuances concerning this question so I decided to engage this atheist and investigate whether or not he understood the question. If you pay close attention to the way he defines evidence and the way he approaches accumulating it, you will notice that it is a failed attempt to force his conclusion whilst appearing to be void of dogma. He criticized me for forcing my conclusion by picking my axiom, but it is quite obvious that he was doing the same thing. He attempted to pick axioms that would cause him to view the world in a way that coheres with his preconceived notions about the supernatural (specifically, the existence of God). Of course, this is how philosophy is done. One picks a first principle and attempts to arrive at the conclusion that they desire. Immaneul Kant’s quest to save empiricism from the devastating critiques of David Hume is one notable example.



      Atheist: Evidence for God?

      Me: Since you have not given a definition for ‘evidence,’ I do not think you understand your own question. How do you define ‘evidence’ in this instance?

      Atheist: Factual circumstances which account for, or support one available explanation over any other.

      Me: What do you mean by “factual circumstances?” How does one determine what constitutes as “factual circumstances?” I do not see how you can define that phrase without begging the question. According to your apparent line of thinking, you seek evidence to account for belief in a proposition, but “factual circumstances” would also have to be determined, and it would either be determined by what you call “evidence” (which would beg the question) or it would involve asserting without evidence (the mistake that you accuse people like Eric of making). Either way, your question becomes meaningless and your own dogmatism is exposed.

      Atheist: Factual circumstance in this case would refer to something which is observable true and is indicative of a supernatural creator.

      Me: Why is it that something is true when it’s observable? How can one even observe? You would have to be able to answer how you can get perceptions from sensory data. I have never met an empiricist that is able to answer this question.

      Furthermore, it seems that the empirical method of observation and experimentation commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent because it involves arguing from effect to cause. The cause of the effect is only assumed, but it is never demonstrated by the empiricist. Therefore, the empiricist only assumes that which is the case without any evidence (given your definition) because it is impossible to determine the cause behind the phenomenon that is observed. Since your definition of ‘factual circumstances” includes discerning one explanation’s validity over another, this a significant problem that your position must somehow overcome.

      Atheist: What other method of knowing something other than sensory perception do you have?

      Me: Well, first, you have not demonstrated that you can know anything via sense perception. Because of this, I don’t know why you asked your question in the way you did. In order to ask, “How else can you know something besides sense perception?” you must be able to first demonstrate that you can know something via sense perception. You have not done so.

      The first step to building a system of philosophy that can escape epistemological skepticism is to realize that everyone is a dogmatist; therefore, every system of philosophy must start with an indemonstrable proposition which is known as an axiom. Though these axioms cannot be demonstrated, they can be tested for logical consistency.

      It is, however, important to note that logical consistency does not guarantee the truth of a proposition, and therefore, is not a sufficient positive test for truth. As a Christian, I recognize that truth is propositional, and I define knowledge as the possession of the truth. My starting point in my philosophical system is “The Bible alone is the Word of God written.” The Bible is defined as the propositional revelation of the 66 books of the protestant canon. Therefore, all of the propositions of scripture and the logical forms used by God to communicate divine truths to us are presuppositions. A Christian may also call propositions that are deduced by necessary consequence knowledge as well. This is how we escape skepticism. One might ask, “How can you know what the Bible teaches without reading it?” This, however, simply assumes what the objector has not proven (the notion that sense perception allows us to account for knowledge). The reason why we can know what the Bible teaches is because it is sufficient to give us knowledge (2 Timothy 3:16). Knowledge is not a matter of disjointed sensory data. Knowledge is propositional, and somehow, when we read the Bible, God, being the cause of all effects (Acts 17:28), impresses his revelation on us.

      Atheist: what reason do you have to start from the bible?

      Me: First principles are chosen. In essence, you may start with whatever first principle that you wish to start with; however, if you do not want to be viewed as intellectually dull, you must be able to defend it.

      As for my reasons, I have several reasons why I chose it. First, it is because I am a child of God, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit is within me (Romans 8:16). Second, it is because I am able to build a complete philosophical system that is able to deal with philosophical questions and criticism of my own system. Third, the Bible attests to its own truth. While that does not demonstration the axiom I have chosen, it does allow me to give an account for my belief that the Bible is true.

      Atheist: your first “reason” is just begging the question ,second the bible makes claims that are evidently untrue ,therefore it can claim no truth, lastly just because something is logically consistent , it isn’t necessarily true. jason i was asking for evidence in the natural world that it has been influenced by a supernatural being, specifically the god of the bible, my meaning was quite apparent. you continue to dance around the question.

      Me: Your accusation of begging the question is incorrect. Begging the question is attempting to demonstrate what you are arguing by assuming it. I am not attempting to demonstrate my axiom. It seems to me that you have not yet learned how to distinguish circular reasoning from linear reasoning. If you think that what I did was begging the question, and you reject it because of that, you must also reject logic as well because it is constructed in the same way as my philosophical system. Of course, if you reject logic, accusations of fallacies become inconsequential.

      You say that the Bible makes claims that are untrue, but you have not given any examples nor have you given any systematic approach to falsifying its claims. Just because you think the Bible makes untrue claims does not make it so.

      If you had read my comment more carefully, you might be aware that I stated that logical consistency does not guarantee the truth of the axiom, and that is why I provided a positive test for truth that did not involve logical consistency. Your criticism of my position involves misrepresenting it, and if you misrepresent my position, you are not interacting with it.

      You asked for ‘evidence,’ but as I already pointed out in a comment (That you never bothered to answer), your definition of evidence is meaningless because your definition necessitates that you determine the cause for what is observed. If you have not yet demonstrated that you can do so, your request is meaningless. I suppose I was correct when I first responded to your question because you do not appear to understand the very question that you directed at Eric.

      Atheist: to say that you choose a religion gives the appearance that you can assert whatever you want as true.

      Me: This is ironic to say the least. I have demonstrated that this is exactly what you have been doing this entire time. If you reject my axiom because you don’t like it, I am free to reject yours. To suggest otherwise is special pleading.

      This can, again, be demonstrated with how you will answer this simple question: As someone who rejects the supernatural, how can you demonstrate that a cause for an effect is a natural cause? Also, let me ask you, how can you draw a conclusion without starting at a proposition? In order to go somewhere, you must start somewhere, and in order to start somewhere, you must assume a proposition is true before drawing inferences. In other words, it is not possible to have a philosophy that is not predicated on an indemonstrable axiom. You are every bit as much of a dogmatist as I am. An apparent difference between you and I is that I accept my dogmatism, but you will not admit to your own dogmatic tendencies.

      Atheist: i don’t “reject the supernatural’ there is no reason to think anything outside the natural world is true

      Me: And what reason do you have to think that the natural world is true? How do you know that causes for effects are natural causes? If you have no reason to think anything outside of the natural world is true, you have no reason to think that there is a natural world to begin with. I’d also like to note that you did not address how you can build an approach to accounting for knowledge without starting with an axiom. I am enjoying this discussion, but if you are going to avoid my questions, I am going to have to bow out of this conversation.

      Atheist: axioms- i exist, the information i obtain via my sensory receptors is accurate, i assume the natural world exists because it is observable . i assume that causes are natural because they are the only causes demonstrated, also ia there anyway we can move this discussion to a private and longer term format

      Me: What does it mean to ‘exist?’ The term is not conducive to a philosophical system because it is a predicate that can follow from any subject.

      What does it mean for sensory receptors to be ‘accurate?’ What about mirages in deserts and the numerous empirical tests that conclude that our senses are not always accurate? It seems that if we grant your axiom, it refutes itself.

      How can you say the natural world exists because it’s observable? What if what you are observing is really the product of an omnipotent demon that intends to deceive you so that you might think the causes are natural? And besides, your third ‘axiom’ is not even an axiom because it includes an attempt to demonstrate it.

      How does one demonstrate a natural cause? Once again, you are attempting to demonstrate your axiom by assuming that the causes are natural. This is a classic case of question begging. A significant problem with all of the axioms you presented is that it leaves no way for you to distinguish between truth and error.

      If you want a different format, I am open to doing a formal debate that includes opening statements, rebuttals, and closing statements. The debate would have to be public though because one of the reasons why I am engaging you is to educate other people on how to handle neo empiricists like yourself. We could also have a public discussion and talk on my YouTube channel via Google plus. You, of course, are not obliged to discuss anything with me here (although you are the one who came on this page to start something with Eric Hovind), nor are you obliged to discuss anything with me via the alternative venues I mentioned.


      My Endorsement for Gary Johnson as President of the United States

      Some who follow me might be aware that I am voting for Gary Johnson this year. I would, however, like to give  few thoughts about my decision to vote for Gary Johnson, and I would also like to take the opportunity to answer some objections to my decision. You may also consider this my official endorsement of Gary Johnson for president of the United States. What I write here will not be comprehensive, but it should give you a good idea of where I stand.

      Fiscal Success

      Gary Johnson and Bill Weld (vice presidential candidate) were very successful governors. Gary Johnson was the governor of New Mexico for two terms. Bill Weld was also the governor of Massachusetts for two terms.  Both of them cut taxes numerous times and helped improve infrastructure in their states. Both of them left their states with a sizeable surplus budget.

      Adherence to the Constitution

      Gary Johnson and Bill Weld have been vocal defenders of governance according to the constitution (both according to the states and the federal government). They are campaigning on the idea that the federal government is too involved in the lives of US Citizens, and many of the things that the federal government is trying to handle should be passed on to the states. Under the original vision of the founding fathers, the federal government was supposed to be significantly less involved in people’s lives than it is today.

      Individual Liberty

      Gary Johnson and Bill Weld advocate letting people make their own decisions, and argue that the federal government doesn’t have to make the people’s decisions for them. They both support (contrary to what others have argued) religious liberty and social liberty. Their views of these issues are consistent with the principles that are laid out in the constitution.

      The Destruction of the Two-Party System

      Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are the most credible threat we have seen to the two-party system since Ross Perot. Though it is an uphill battle, they do have a chance of overcoming it.

      Objections to Voting for Gary Johnson

      1. A vote for Gary Johnson is a wasted vote.

      Response: The idea of voting is to express our opinions about what direction is best for our country. This expression is never a waste unless you vote for a candidate that does not reflect the direction you think the country should go.

      2. Gary Johnson is pro choice and supports gay marriage.

      Response: Both of the accusations are indeed true. I abhor abortion, and I believe that abortion is murder, but the constitution does not ban it. The only constitutional way to make abortion illegal is to amend the constitution with a definition of ‘person’ that includes unborn children.

      Relationships, including homosexual ones, are personal choices. I believe that homosexual relationships are unethical; however, the constitution does not give the government the power to determine what constitutes as a marriage and what doesn’t. If we go around the constitution in an effort to ban these things, it opens a Pandora’s box where nearly anything can be banned by going around the constitution. Any process to ban these behaviors must go through a constitutional process.

      3. You say you are a ‘Clarkian,’ but Gordon Clark would not vote for Gary Johnson.

      Response: I agree that Gordon Clark probably wouldn’t vote for Gary Johnson, but I am not Gordon Clark. In Clark’s system, ‘politics’ is a matter of opinion; therefore, Clarkians may hold differing view on politics.

      4. A vote for Johnson is a vote for abortion.

      Response: That is like saying that a vote for Trump is a vote for strip joints. 1 Voting for a candidate does not mean that you agree with every position that candidate has. At best, one could argue that the reasoning behind a vote for a candidate is inconsistent.

      5. Gary Johnson will appoint liberal judges to the supreme court.

      Response: Regardless of ideology, a supreme justice’s job is to make legal decisions that are in accordance with the constitution. The judicial branch cannot legislate. If the judicial branch legislates, we have bigger problems than having an unfit person as our president. The only solutions would be either to get the judicial branch under control or to throw out our current government and create a new one.


      1. Donald Trump has owned buildings that were used in part by strip clubs.


        When will the Church finally realize that we need to combat Islam?

        There have been numerous tragedies that have been connected to Islamic terrorism, yet many churches remain reluctant to send missionaries overseas to countries such as Pakistan. I know a few Pakistani people who are preaching the Gospel in the midst of Pakistan. These are great Christians that have a heart for spreading the Gospel to men, women, and children, yet getting a church to help them is like pulling teeth.

        There is only one way to defeat evil, and that is the Gospel. Jesus came to conquer to die for the sins of those who believe so that death itself might be conquered (1 Cor 15:20). What is it that the church fears? We can send our missionaries, and we can financially support those Pakistanis that are already there spreading the Gospel. Back when Answers for Hope took donations, the ministry donated a majority of excess funds to ministries in Pakistan. Even today, I have given to those ministries whenever there was a need that I could help with.

        Of course, the Gospel must reach beyond Pakistan, but it is a great start. If we bring the Gospel to the middle east instead of bombs and US soldiers, the Gospel will not return void (Isaiah 55:11). Let’s stop being idle and destroy Islamic terrorism. Let us not destroy it by the weapons of the world, but by the weapons of the spirit (2 Cor. 10:4).  Let us not use bombs and bullets, which only destroy. Instead, we ought to use a weapon that destroys evil and restores the world. That weapon is the Gospel.

        Preliminary Comments on The Reason Rally 2017

        Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the reason rally because my time was already committed. I do wonder, however, how these atheists define “reason.” In the roster of speakers, there are numerous atheists that have a skeptical view of epistemology yet they will advocate an empirical methodology as the “best” way to discover the truth and that revelation through the Bible should be rejected a priori. But if skepticism is the correct view of epistemology, there is no best way to discover the truth because there is no truth that can be known in the first place, nor is there a way to give a critique of any method that is used to discover or account for a possessed truth. Maybe we should just call it “The Unreasonable Rally.”

        Liberal Hypocrisy Concerning Refusal of Business

        It seems like it is becoming popular for people to refuse to do business with states that advocate either religious liberty or an intelligible way to differentiate between two genders. Recently, Michael Moore has stated he would boycott North Carolina. One Twitter user promptly (and rightfully so) pointed out that Michael Moore is invoking a right to refuse to do business with others who do not agree with him.

        Certainly, there is both an intellectual and emotional hypocrisy involved on the part of liberals. Some readers may recall two Christian Bakers that had to pay a $135,000 fine to a lesbian couple for refusing to bake a cake for their wedding. Perhaps there is more incentive to have hurt feelings now than there has ever been before. Nevertheless, the Christian Bakers, as business owners, refused to bake a cake and they have to pay a fine, yet Michael Moore refuses to do business with North Carolina due to the “bathroom bill” that requires that people have to go into the bathroom that corresponds with their birth certificate (Oh, cruel fate. Oh! The inhumanity of it all!).

        It is pretty obvious that the instances where liberals believe that someone has a right to refuse business is stacked against Christians and other ideologies that disagree with their own. This, of course, is not universal. Some liberals do have respect for opposing beliefs, but it seems that the most vocal activists for liberalism seem to hold to this hypocritical standard of dealing with opposing viewpoints in the context of business. Of course, liberal activism and logical consistency do not typically go hand in hand.

        Gender Identity, Restrooms, Logic and Some Sarcasm

        It is hard to believe that I now live in a world that thinks that there is a debate to be had about which bathrooms someone can use. I’m going to make this simple for the people who think they can argue that people shouldn’t have to go to the bathroom that corresponds with their birth certificate by briefly highlighting six points:

        1. Historically, gender identification has been associated with anatomy.

        2. When arguing with someone who believes that someone should go into the bathroom that corresponds with their gender, inserting a differing definition of gender into an articulation of the opposing position commits the fallacy of equivocation. If you are going to critique a person’s position, you must use the person’s definitions if you wish to have a meaningful dialogue.

        3. I have gotten several good laughs by watching people attempt to differentiate gender identity by anything other than anatomy.

        4. The most common objection I have faced involves arguing that some people are born with both male and female anatomy, and therefore, the issue of gender identity is not so cut and dry. The reply is elementary. If gender identity is a choice rather than a consequence of anatomy, the doctor should have waited for the baby to choose their gender before removing body parts. And besides, what’s wrong with having anatomy from both? These people clearly don’t like hermaphrodites. Bigots.

        5. If gender identity is a choice, why can’t any form of identity be a choice? Clearly, I can’t declare myself a millionaire and go to my bank to withdraw $1,000,000.00. That is patently absurd and it should be changed. I could do A LOT with a million dollars. I am clearly being victimized because society is holding me down by not allowing me to choose my tax bracket.

        6. I suppose that it is now impossible to tell whether my dogs are male or female. Should I start referring to them as “it” if I choose to invoke a pronoun? Any suggestions would be appreciated because I certainly don’t want to say anything that might offend someone.

        Philosophers that Rejected Scientific Knowledge

        Clarkian Apologetics is on the rise in the Church body. As more people read Gordon Clark’s works, they become more familiar with an aspect of the history of philosophy that is not talked about as often as it should. This aspect concerns the philosophers that rejected the notion that empirical inquiry can give an account for what is called scientific knowledge. Outside of academic circles, it is rare that anyone who doesn’t already have at least a passing interest in philosophy hears about these philosophers and their rejection of empiricism.

        With the familiarity of this aspect of the history of philosophy that is obtained from Dr. Clark’s works, and with the devastating arguments that Dr. Clark  gives against empiricism, some of the readers of Dr. Clark’s works become opposed to empiricist epistemology. This, of course, annoys many atheists on social media because these atheists believe that the scientific method has shown the Bible to be nothing more than a collection of fairy tales. For examples, social media pages such as ‘God on the Slide,’ have a group of admins that attempt to frame the my objections to empiricism in a way that makes it seem like only people whose beliefs are threatened by the scientific method will be inclined to reject the notion that empirical investigation is able to give us an account for knowledge.

        This being said, I have compiled a short list (it could be significantly longer) of notable philosophers that reject/rejected empiricism and its ability to allow us to account for knowledge. To show the diversity of this group, I will include people from a wide spectrum of stances on religion.

        1. Plato

        Plato was a rationalist. Rationalists were directly opposed to empiricism because they held that the primary source of knowledge was reason rather than sense perception. Plato is on this list because it is often said that the history of philosophy is Plato, and other philosophers are footnotes.

        2. Baruch Spinoza

        Spinoza was no friend to Christianity. Some say that Spinoza was an atheist, but he was clearly a pantheist. Spinoza is classified under the school of rationalism.

        3. David Chalmers

        David Chalmers is an atheist Australian philosopher whose primary interest is the philosophy of the mind. Despite being a cognitive scientist, he is considered to be a rationalist in regards to his epistemology.

        4. Sextus Empiricus

        Sextus Empiricus is a philosopher that is popular with some atheists. As an epistemological skeptic, he rejected the notion that knowledge was possible. He rejected this notion for two reasons: First, he did not believe that true belief was enough. Second, he did not believe that it was possible to obtain sufficient justification to call a belief ‘knowledge.’ As a result of these beliefs, he rejected both rationalism and empiricism.

        5. Socrates

        Last, but not least, the philosopher who taught Plato (who then taught Aristotle). Socrates was an epistemological skeptic. He famously claimed that the only thing he knew was that he knew nothing. Because of this, Socrates rejected the notion that empirical investigation could give an account for knowledge of any proposition.


        If one were to peruse the entirety of the history of philosophy, the list would be significantly longer. These philosophers have garnered respect with the atheist community despite their rejection of empiricism, yet when a Christian objects to empiricism, the Christian is accused of being an ‘ignorant science denier.’ The hypocrisy that is expressed in this typical scenario is a bit obvious. If these philosophers are respected by an empiricist despite their rejection of empiricism, the empiricist has no logical grounds to dismiss Christians who agree that empiricism can’t give an account for knowledge.