Stormbringer's Thunder

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  A common occurrence when dealing with professing (Rom. 1:20) atheists is a demand to "prove that God exists", usually with some kind of empirical evidence. (This is the logical fallacy of the category error, because God is spirit, John 4:24.) On more than one occasion, other Christians and I have had such demands followed with question-begging epithets . It may come as a shock, but evidence is for believers , not scoffers.  Assembled with graphics from Clker clipart In the famous debate between Drs. Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein, the latter said that he would be persuaded if a miracle happened in his presence. Stein suggested that if the podium rose up five feet, hung there, then dropped down, he would have to conclude something supernatural had happened. Bahnsen was having none of that : People are not made theists by miracles. People must change their world views; their hearts must be changed. They need to be converted. That what it takes, and that’s

As many Christian apologists know, all believers must sanctify Christ as Lord and be ready to give a reasoned defense for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). Misotheists and other anti-creationists claim to love science and reason, but many are weak in these areas. Left: Christ Resurrected / Herbert Gustave Schmalz, 1890 Right: Prayer of Moses after the Israelites go through the Red Sea / Ivan Kramskoy, 1861 God's Word tells us that those who claim that God does not exist are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and are without excuse (Rom. 1:18-23). In addition, the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God (1 Cor. 1:20-25), and we have the Holy Spirit living in us, so we can see through God's leading and the Bible how worldly wisdom is at odds with true wisdom. With these truths in mind, Christians should easily be able to see why it is improper and unbiblical to argue from an evidence-only position that puts God on trial. This is can also be clearly seen when  argu

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Ray Comfort has been proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ for many years, and he has made a prairie schooner-full of videos of various lengths under the banner of Living Waters . Atheists like these have a great time ridiculing and misrepresenting him, but he still preaches the gospel with love and without compromise. Screenshot from the title section of Amazing Atheist While many professing atheists tend to ridicule Ray's videos, some have actually watched them. He had video interviews with two of them. John has been vile and hateful, and Justin expresses disagreement but was pleasant. In the interview, both were civil and actually let him speak. Justin is one of the few atheists I've seen that can be personable, and I think I could have a discussion with him. One of them said that a turning point for him was that he was told to believe literally everything in the Bible. Define "literally". No rational Christian believes all of th

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen While the majority of climate change activists have little or no knowledge of science and "think" with their emotions, there are scientists involved. Apparently some of them are feeling lower than a snake's belly in a wagon wheel rut. They have some blamestorming to do, but they're looking in the wrong direction. As I pointed out in " Climate Change and Ignored Truth " , secularists have a passel of presuppositions, including materialism, an old earth, evolutionism, and if there is a God, he is not in control. They appeal to emotions, not facts or logic , and trot out pawns like Greta "How Dare You!" Thunberg to throw kerosene on the fire. (Some of us don't take none too kindly to manipulation, you savvy?) We see that their predictions over the years have all failed , and some are so far away that those who made the alarmist claims will all be taking dirt naps before they can be criticized. When people get all he

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This 2010 debate between atheist David Silverman and Christian Dr. James White illustrates how things that are considered logical from an atheistic perspective are, in reality, incoherent. Silverman used many fallacies: Argument from outrage (essentially, the New Testament is evil because he doesn't like what it says) Straw man arguments (when he was called on this, he promptly redefined the meaning of a straw man for his own convenience) Appeal to motive plus some ad hominem  remarks against Dr. White Equivocation For a debate on the New Testament, he went back to the Old Testament several times. Especially Genesis, which helps illustrate why biblical creationists affirm its truth Several others that I'll leave to the listener to observe James White clearly showed that David Silverman's arguments for the nature of good and evil are irrational, standing on the biblical worldview when he calls something evil, but Silverman also relies

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen There's a whole whack of supporting links and recommended resources in this article. This is not a blanket approval for everything on every site, so I reckon that people have to use their discernment when reading other material at those sites, you savvy? To hear some professing atheists talk, they want to usher in an age of science and reason, which should be accomplished by doing away with religion and superstition. They get mighty ornery when someone points out that atheism itself is a religion, and don't even want to look at the evidence . What they are attempting to do is proselytize people into their fundamentally flawed worldview, and distance themselves from the religion moniker. The principle of "separation of church and state" that they misrepresent when bullying through litigation could backfire on the religion of atheism. I'll allow that atheists generally do not have a formal confession of faith or attend meetings , but man

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Professing atheists riding the owlhoot trail are frequently claiming to be purveyors of "science" and "reason", but often displaying an inability to understand either. People with even a rudimentary understanding of logic can see their posturing for what it is. ( Even after having their fallacies pointed out , some t inhorns deny that there is anything wrong with their Mighty Atheist Intellects™ by denying having made the fallacies, or even trying to cover up by commit ting more . Some of us don't cotton to wasting our time on them .) One of their many fallacies atheists use is over-generalization, such as saying that the recent ISIS terrorist attacks on Paris are a reason to outlaw all religion . Oh, please. There are Christians who get into battles of trying to out-evidence the other side, but those of us who use presuppositional apologetics take a different approach. One reason atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, Deists, peop

A rare polite atheist called " Matt Slick Live ". It was an interesting discussion, and Matt was showing how atheism is self-refuting. Since there were no callers, Matt and Zack (I wonder if this is the Zack I dialogued with back when this site took comments?) went most of the hour. (If you want to miss the banter, announcements and Matt's computer crash, skip ahead a bit and start at the nine minute mark.) Click here to go to the page , and then get the MP3 at the link as shown below:

Actually, it's not recorded live for anyone's pleasure. Rather, this is to instruct and inform. "What are you nattering on about, Cowboy Bob?" Some people want me to do podcasts. I'm not sure about that yet. I was on a radio show/podcast recently. We discussed atheism, logic, how atheism is fundamentally flawed in the logic department, stalkers, Christians, presenting the gospel message, worldviews, evolutionary presuppositions and more. Here is a link so you can listen and find out more . Here is a music video:

While listening to the August 12, 2012 podcast of " Stand to Reason " with Greg Koukl, I heard something that I could not only use, but fit in quite will with my intellectual and spiritual development. I was pounding the desk and shouting out, "Yeah!". Then I realized that all my co-workers were staring at me. Then I further realized that my outburst only happened in my mind, so everything was fine. Anyway. Greg was going on about the withered old canard, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (popularized by Carl Sagan, a variation on a quote from Laplace, also a variation on a similar quote from Hume). There was something about that saying that struck me about its wrongness, but I did not know why. All I knew was that it was rubbish. Then Greg pointed out that there is substantial arbitrariness to that remark. The speaker demands that you please him or her with the evidence. You can listen to the part of the show that got me all agitat

Buona sera. First, a bit of business to take care of. An atheist troll keeps bugging me about the Photoshop "Crocoduck" picture that I had up for a while. "What does it mean, Cowboy Bob?" (sigh) It's something that some of us who are Creationists mention. Since there are no examples of transitional forms between species in the fossil record, the crocoduck is an illustration of that point — if evolution were true, you'd see change of this nature all the time. Can we move on, now? Did the big words in the title scare you? Don't let them. According to Matt Slick of CARM , "A Christian presuppositionalist presupposes God's existence and argues from that perspective to show the validity of Christian theism. This position also presupposes the truth of the Christian Scriptures and relies on the validity and power of the gospel to change lives (Rom. 1:16)." Essentially, I see it as, "Let's assume for this discuss