The past few days I posted much more quickly than usual, and I normally spend a lot more time going back over my posts to make sure they're acceptable. I've been pretty busy and stressed these days... maybe blogging is a reaction to stress. Chowon is very sweet, though, and I'm so blessed to be married to her. I couldn't ask for a better wife, and she is God's great gift to me all the time.

Looking back through those posts, I found a few small slips that were worth correcting, and a few careless descriptions, which I think might be worth wording more carefully.... but for the most part, I'm not displeased with the posts. I think there's a lot more work to be done before I'll feel like the ideas I'm trying to express are really clearly expressed. There is still quite a bit of room for interpretation in some of my points... but I was trying to keep it condensed. I keep being lazy on the Bible verses, for example. And saying things like, "you can't accidentally walk into a room where God is no longer the best ultimate foundation," and "we can't go 'ask dad because mom always says no'", is not exactly what I would regard as an effective articulation of the point. If a point is meaningful, then it can be fully articulated, I think. We shouldn't rely on "if you know what I mean" in any kind of argument. (That said, I do surely hope you know what I mean.) I intend to flesh those out more in the (hopefully near) future.

I want to clear up two potential objections with regard to my descriptions of Logic (big L) from earlier. 

It struck me that someone might say that the problem I raised in 2L ignores a potential solution by means of 1L. 1L was a proposed stance that one might take. The way I organized that post was a bit poor, but I certainly think that 2L was a refutation of 1L, and not the other way around. If our minds were truly formed in the image of "Logic" then there would be no room for a hypothetical situation where we find that we were wrong about a logical rule. 

That leads me to the second potential objection. I basically equated physics, math, and logic in a few of those points. I think it was a fair equivocation (not a fallacious one), for two reasons: First, every atheist I've ever spoken to has done the same exact thing when convenient, and with less grace. Plus, I've met several who also equivocated physics with biological evolution, which I think is a stretch by their standards. But that's not to say that "just because they make a stupid argument, I am justified in doing it" at all. I don't mean that. In fact, my second reason is, I think that all math and physics are extensions of logic. I think that if your science finds itself outside of the realm of logic, then you should abandon it. 

A. "but we don't know all the laws of physics" -- Exactly

B. "but particles behave unpredictably at the quantum level" -- I honestly think this is a ridiculous conclusion to draw from the evidence. If you build a house using unstable bricks, then you will have an unstable house. It is exceedingly more likely that the laws of physics are not completely ignored by small particles; rather, they're misunderstood in the case of both large and small particles.

C. "but Heisenberg said..." -- Just because we don't know how to determine something doesn't mean it's unknowable. We don't fully understand the properties of an electron.

D. "are you saying you know more than [insert favorite theoretical physicist]?" -- No. But do I have to be "smarter than" someone in order to know that they are wrong about anything?

Last thing for today, someone reading my prior posts might have picked up on the idea that I'm pretty well sold on "predestination". And, let's face it, I don't know what your translation says in Romans 8:29-30 and Ephesians 1:4-5,11-12, but mine says "predestined". I'll try to anticipate some quick questions on it:

A. "Then why do you pray?" -- Because I don't know the future, and the Bible generally encourages, if not commands prayer (see Psalm 55:22, 1 Peter 5:7, and the basically the entire rest of the Bible). The Bible says that God responds to our prayers (James 5:16), and so, as with my answer to B, we pray because it is the means by which God has determined to see that certain things come about. 

B. "Then why do you minister to others?" -- Because Jesus commanded it (Matthew 28:16-20), and because God predetermined that the means by which people would come to Christ was because of ministers (Romans 10:14-15).

C. "I'm not a Christian. Does this mean I'm damned?" -- Are you dead? Then no. You should come to Christ right now!

D. "How do I come to Christ?" -- You repent of your sins and turn to belief in Jesus Christ, who took the penalty for your sins. Then you will not have to bear the penalty yourself.

E. "Isn't that just shirking responsibility for my sins?" -- No. The first step is "repent". It's not shirking responsibility any more than apologizing and then devoting yourself to never do it again is shirking responsibility. Jesus is God, and so God may take the penalty upon Himself if He chooses, because He is both the judge and the one sinned against (Psalm 51:4). 

F. "What about all the places in the Bible where God gives us a choice? Or where He seems to change His mind?" -- God has always described this as his mode of interaction with us (see Jeremiah 18:7-10, also Deut 28). God isn't "changing His mind". Rather, He's acting according to the rules and standards of justice which He loves. A truly repentant heart is what God wants. And God does know what we will choose, and God did predetermine it. However, we do it because it's what we want to do, and not for any other reason. Nobody is saying "I don't want to steal this money, but I can't stop myself because I'm predetermined to do it". We are 100% responsible for our choices.

That's it! I'm sure there's lots more that can be said.

Good night!

"You're such a good dog"