![]() What we must do is take all of the presuppositions of a worldview into account, and follow those presuppositions to their logical conclusions. ![]() You might ask, how can we tell how a worldview is valid or invalid? The mark of something that is not true is inconsistency. Since science alone can not test the validity of worldviews, we must use other methods to test claims in which science itself cannot test. However, Christian apologists will say, “We have good reasons to not accept your claim.” and then will proceed to give those reasons. The atheist will say “If you can’t prove to my satisfaction that God exists, then I am justified in not believing.” It is an argument from ignorance to say that “X” does not exist because it hasn’t been proven to my satisfaction. The distinction is that Christian apologists give good reasons to accept that something doesn’t exist or isn’t true, whereas atheist apologists will commit a fallacy known as an argument from ignorance. Could the Flying Spaghetti Monster have created the universe? There is a fundamental distinction between the way that Christian apologists approach proving a negative and the way that atheists approach proving a negative.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |