It’s any wonder human beings have been able to reproduce at all, one might call it a miracle, but then again that’s a dirty word…

However your comment only brings us back to what I’ve already pointed out regarding our brains. Mainly what I’ve already said above,

I repeat,

Is it not obvious to you that the very thing we use to judge whether or not something is poorly designed may itself be poorly designed? How can be so sure that it is even capable of making such pronouncements? Why is the brain an exception?that the thrust of your comment, by all accounts, was arrived upon by utilizing your brain.

Basically, my point is that, if there IS some grand intelligence designing all life, he’s got an AWFULLY high tolerance for abortion, seeing as he’s willing to do it himself ALL THE TIME.

While we’re on the subject of flawed reproductive anatomy, we have the cervix, which is simply smaller than it should be, in light of the massive human head. That’s not a constant problem, of course, because infants have soft bones to compensate and allow them to squeeze through, but it requires that the baby be born in a state in which they are basically immobile, due to minimal muscular development. They’re basically born before they’re fully formed.

Of course, it’s not only the female organs that have problems. Consider the male testes: they just hang out there, perfectly exposed to the elements and all sorts of hazards. The reason, of course, is that sperm cannot handle the higher temperatures inside the main body, so they’re given this cooler little peninsula, if you’ll pardon the metaphor. A better choice would be to redesign the sperm to withstand higher temperatures, then pop them back into the rest of the body.

When there are this many problem with organs designed for replication and propagation of the species — a necessity for ANY life-form — you can hardly call the design intelligent.

But we all bring the exact same starting point to the table: the assumption that our senses are not fundamentally deceiving us. Everything else comes after that fundamental axiom. So we are all on common ground.

“No, I’m just saying that the naturalist has no reason to assume this.”

No less reason than the supernaturalist. Actually, I’d say the naturalist has more reason to assume it. The supernaturalist believes in supernatural beings who could theoretically cause our senses to deceive us. The naturalist does not believe in any such beings.

“But we can know, the naturalist (by the em, nature of his philosophical underpinnings among other things, chief of which is our total depravity) lives in uncertainty.”

If by uncertainty, you mean we can never know with 100% certainty that we are not being deceived in some way, then we ALL live with this. Naturalist and supernaturalist. Fortunately, we don’t need 100% certainty. 99.999999etc.% is just fine.

No, I’m just saying that the naturalist has no reason to assume this.

It’s true that we could all be brains in jars. Or we might be under the deception of Loki. Or the world might have been created last Thursday with the appearance that it had been around for much longer. Any one of these possibilities could be true, and we would have no way of knowing. Thus, we have no choice but to assume that our senses are not deceiving us in one of these fundamental ways, and are instead giving us a relatively accurate portrait of the world around us. Once we make this assumption, we can examine the world empirically in order to gain knowledge. This how everyone in the world gains knowledge. You, me, everyone. This is how you learned everything you learned, so it makes no sense for you to be arguing against it.

Round and round the mulberry bush…

All you’re really doing is saying, well, we might be wrong. And of course, I agree. We might be wrong. We can never reach 100% certainty in any of the knowledge we gain about the world around us. But, through empirical observation, we can reach very high levels of confidence. We can become sure to the point where the only way we could possibly be wrong is if our senses are deluding us in some fundamental way. But if they were, we’d never know, so what’s the point in considering it?

But we can know, the naturalist (by the em, nature of his philosophical underpinnings among other things, chief of which is our total depravity) lives in uncertainty.

No, our observations of the world around us are empirical evidence.

Yes but the philosophical assumption must come first. Any observation will be made to fit whatever philosophical assumptions (perhaps, starting point) we bring to the table.

I’m asking you what you think might happen should the Bible or any real knowledge of it be destroyed. There would be no more Christianity on Earth, but there would still be humans.

Yes, you’re right but God would somehow (exactly how is mere speculation) reveal Himself to the remaining humans. In Genesis 4:26 we read that “men began to call upon the name of the LORD”, implying that somehow mankind had either declined to do so or perhaps at this point in history forgotten about Him.

And of course, because the written word perishes, this does not mean the redemptive work on the cross of the Incarnate Word is null and void

What of other people who are equally in touch with the Spirit and know equally that their faith is true, but just doesn’t happen to be the same faith that you have? i.e. Muslim, etc.

No Muslim (or unbeliever) can be indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Therefore there is no unbeliever that is “equally in touch” with the Holy Spirit.

So far as I know, Muslim theology does not involve the Holy Spirit in any way. Certainly they don’t recognize the Trinity.

Or how about another question in terms of faith and knowledge. Let’s imagine that the world is embroiled in a nuclear war (doesn’t seem too farfetched at this point) and the only place that has any surviving humans are some remote islands in the South Pacific and a few tribes deep in the Amazon. None of the surviving people have ever heard of Christianity (or at least don’t adhere to it) and there is no copy of a Bible to be found, and all other existing Bibles get destroyed in the war (let’s imagine). What becomes of humanity?

It goes on as it goes on now in places where the Gospel has not reached. For example, some Muslims (who live in oppressive nations) tell of their conversions via dreams. What God does as far as redemptive acts are concerned at that point is as hypothetical as your scenario.

What are you talking about? All we have to assume is that our senses are not fundamentally misleading us. It’s the same assumption you and every other person has to make in order to have any basis for knowledge. Once you make that assumption, however, you no longer have to assume anything. You can observe that our brains work well enough to get by, but not well enough to always keep us from committing logical fallacies, etc.

Assumption*

“Yes, then the problem comes in when there is a higher judgment than human judgment, but then again if your presuppositions don’t allow for this, well not much further we can go here.”

What’s the problem? If there’s a higher judgment than human jugment, we can’t make it, being humans, so why bother mentioning it?

“It’s the latter. The evo. explanation is an explanation (not in a Biblical view certainly) but it is not THE only explanation.”

It is the only useful explanation, and the only explanation arrived at by objective examination of empirical evidence.

*A philosophical assumption is ‘empirical evidence’?

‘Round and ’round the mulberry bush…