May 8, 2007
-
levitating podiums
Here's an interesting quote from a debate between a christian and an atheist a few years ago, with my comments below:
Moderator: "You have said that there has been no adequate evidence put forth for God's existence. What for you personally would constitute adequate evidence for God's existence?"
Dr. Stein: "Well it's very simple; I can give you two examples. If that podium suddenly rose into the air five feet, stayed there for a minute, and then dropped right down again. I would say that was evidence of the super natural, because it would violate everything we know about the laws of physics and chemistry (assuming that there wasn't an engine under there or a wire attached to it--we can make those obvious exclusions). That would be evidence for a supernatural, violation of the laws, we could call it a miracle right in front of your eyes. That would be evidence I would accept. Any kind of a supernatural being putting in an appearance and doing miracles that could not be stage magic would also be evidence I would accept. Those are the two simplest ways. I would also accept any evidence that is logically noncontradictory and I have not heard any yet tonight, that hasn't been offered already."
Dr. Bahnsen: "Dr. Stein, I think, is really not reflecting on the true nature of atheism and human nature when he says, "All it would take is a miracle in my very presence to believe in God." History is replete with, first of all, things which would be, apparently, miracles to people. Now from an atheistic or naturalistic standpoint, I will grant in terms of the hypothesis, that that's because they were ignorant of all the causal factors and so it appeared to be miraculous; but that didn't make everybody into a theist. In fact, Scripture tells us there are instances of people who witnessed miracles who all the more hardened their heart and eventually crucified the Lord of Glory. They saw his miracles; that didn't change their minds. People are not made theists by miracles. People must change their world view; their hearts must be changed. They need to be converted. That's what it takes. And that's what it would take for Dr. Stein to finally believe in it. If this podium rose up five feet off the ground and stayed there, Dr. Stein would have, eventually--in the future--some naturalistic explanation. You see they believe things on faith, by which I mean they believe things they have not proven as yet by their senses.
I agree with Bahnsen here. Specifically, even if Stein saw the podium rise into the air, it would (likely) go against his own belief structure to accept even this as proof of 'the supernatural', because it would be an argument "appealing to a god of the gaps." If he wished his basic atheistic presuppositions to remain unchanged, he could simply say that the naturalistic explanation for the event had not yet been discovered but that the history of scientific discovery provided hope that such an explanation (for mysteriously levitating podiums) would eventually be discovered.
What do you think?
Comments (10)
"If they do not believe Moses and the Prophets, neither will they believe if someone should rise from the dead." Bahnsen made a good point. We must start by believing the testimony of the witnesses. Then, we get to see the miracles for ourselves. "Blessed are they who have not seen, and believed."
Well, I'm two plays, and we could record them, so does that count?
hey! i am sooo glad you posted that up there! I just, finished a 12 page paper on bahsen/stein for my symbolic logic class term paper subject "does god exist?"
I don't think I have ever been so encouraged, or heard such a clear argument. that transcendental argument really stands alone. I do wish chrstians would stop relying on the 11 theistic proofs, because they are so faulty logically speaking, any student of apologetics (or any christian for that matter) should familiarize himself with this debate, and other works of bahsen, van til, and schaeffer.
I completely agree with Bahnsen, as I have experienced this in my discussions with an agnostic. That is a wonderful quote, and it is interesting that the link that you provided came from my former Greek professor in seminary!
Hi, Tim. Your's article was very interesting. The other day, Peter and I were folding laundry, and just happen to turn on the Oprah Winphry show. I don't watch it often, but this was just a few minutes while we were folding. She had a young man on her show, (I don't know his name) who claimed that he could walk on water. Well - sure enough, he "supposedly" walked on the water...Pete and I both saw it. I turned to Peter and said "no one can walk on water but Jesus." This was either a trick (rope tied to his back), or magic, evil, who knows.
I've mentioned to you before; I am not the most scholarly person. But, it seems to me, that someone is always trying to "out-do" Jesus; (like they ever could). He is our Savior, Redemer, God Incarnate...etc. I am angered at the different religions that try to out-smart, out-wit, out-do, the King of Kings. He is our God, there is none else.
I hope this makes sense.
Your sister and friend in Christ,
Mrs. Swift
Thanks, Tim...I appreciated your note.
Take care
-shrug- That's probably true. I wouldn't be terribly inclined to believe in God even if I saw something like that happen; I don't believe in "supernatural" things, really; everything has an explanation, it may just be one that's not readily apparent.
~Sol
Sol illustrates the whole problem here. It is one of philosophical presuppostions. In a materialistic worldview, there can be no such thing as a supernatural occurance, since the supernatural realm is ruled out a priori. There are merely anomalies which are not yet explained. That is the problem with starting your defence for Christianity with miracles. If we don't get to the root of the worldview first, it will just be a game of definitions. The atheist says it is an anomaly. The Christian says miracle. We must first establish the basis for God's existence from a cosmological and teleological statpoint. Only when it is shown that God exists, or that at least he might exist, miracles are possible. See my site for an overview of the cosmological and teleological arguments. You will have to go a few entries back into the archives. Better yet, read "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. One thing we cannot do is say that we must just have faith, as if faith is meant to bring us to believe that God exists apart from any reason. Faith allows us to move from reason which says God exists, to an existential trust in Him. My eyes tell me there is a chair. My faith allows me to sit on it. Thanks for the useful discussion.
The fact that useless anomalies like that don't just happen all of the time, I believe, is the real miracle, in that it demonstrates order and consistency, some thing that could only result from and active, omniscient Creator.
Hi, cool post.
I think a lot of atheists would start believing if they witnessed miracles. But a lot would remain atheists because there are ways to get around the conclusion of the supernatural. I read somewhere that a way to beef up Hume's argument against trusting testimony to miracles is to expand the definition of testimony to include our sensory perception, which is a sort of testimony when you think about it. If Stein saw the podium rise off the ground, he could say that the vast majority of his experience is of podiums not rising inexplicably. Additionally, Stein has multiple past experiences of him being extremely tired, imagining things, having his mind play tricks on him, and these sorts of things. So then Stein could draw the rational conclusion that his experience of a rising podium is probably a hallucination or some such thing, giving him the excuse to not adopt a supernatural explanation. So, even if a staunch and heart-hardened atheist saw what most reasonable people would consider a supernatural event, he can still justify remaining an unbeliever if he really wanted to.
Comments are closed.