Twit longer has to be the most annoying things about Twitter. If you can’t say it in a few tweets, then you probably shouldn’t say it at all. But I guess some things are just difficult to say in 140 character, and really, that is why we started this blog in the first place, so let’s get started.
@AADariusz (Darius from here on out) replied to a tweet I had made pointing out the logical contradiction in a popular internet atheist meme asking someone to prove that an [invisible pink unicorn] doesn’t exist and if someone can do that, they would then employ the same method to prove that God doesn’t exist. Now what was funny about the meme is that it would be impossible for a unicorn to be both pink and invisible at the same time. This would mean that the idea of a unicorn that is of the invisible pink kind would be self contradictory and thus could not possibly exist. The whole meme was self defeating, but what I found odd is that Darius attempted to defend it’s merit. In doing so, he made the claim that the properties of God are self contradictory, a claim he then tried to back up by linking me to the Internet Infidels library of over a dozen arguments. He chose not to defend this assertion himself and then claimed that if I had linked him the hundreds of theistic arguments that he wouldn’t mind knocking them all down. The guy who defended the credibility of a self defeating meme is going to “knock down” Alvin Plantinga’s Ontological argument? Professional philosophers haven’t been able to do it, so how does a layman hold any hope? Continue reading →
How often I have run into internet atheists trying to tell me that the definition of faith is “belief despite the evidence”. Now I’m not surprised that they would try and redefine a word that would make things easier for them, like the definition of atheism, but this one is perhaps the most laughable.
So how should a Christian define faith? Well they should go to the Bible, of course and what better passage to go to then Hebrews 11: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” it also goes on to say that “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” (NKJV) Now does that sound like the ridiculous caricature presented in the opening paragraph? No. It is the hope and trust that we put in the Lord God Almighty.
So what’s wrong with defining faith as mentioned in the opening paragraph? Well for starters it’s a clear cut case of the strawman fallacy. Not only that, but how many times in your life do you tell people that you have faith in them? If you mean “I believe you despite the evidence”, then I think you should tell them that, and watch their reaction.
The fact is, faith is trust and we Christians put their trust in God. Whether you think that is silly or not is of no consequence. Seeing as how it is us who have faith in God, it is up to us to tell you what we mean when we say it, and not your place to tell us what how we define faith.
There are many apologetics blogs out there. And that’s awesome.
This blog is not necessarily like those blogs. Our goal for this blog is to provide a place for twitter conversations to continue.
We want to reach out to those who actively use twitter – and who challenge the Christian faith in one way or another. It seems obvious that some questions cannot be answered in <140 characters. And when that happens, we move the conversation here.
The twitter account related to this blog is @HashtagApologia, and you can find us here.
(HashtagApologetics was one letter too long for twitter)
We’re excited to move the conversation forward.
We encourage you to join us.