I Tumblr, Therefore I Am


I’ve wondered for awhile now why there seems to be this infinite regression of words and why we cannot exactly convey what we mean in what we say. When someone tells me why they think oranges are the best food ever, I ask them, what do you mean by best? In many cases, we may have different conceptions of ‘best’ and what makes a food better than another. Where did we get a standard for food and why does everyone seem to have one? What is a perfect fruit? But then we could go further. Where did this idea of a perfect fruit come from? They might say, well it is a fruit that tastes better than others. But I could ask, what do you mean by that? Are you saying that it tastes better because it has more flavor? Does more flavor entail being better qualitatively? Or is it because its sour? Is sour a better taste than sweet? How do we know? Even whoever is reading this may not get what I’m trying to say because each sentence a person transmits seems to lose some of the meaning they intended. Grr! It drives me nuts sometimes


Performance tests. New prototype coming soon.

Model by mirada from rome


Performance tests. New prototype coming soon.

Model by mirada from rome

(Source: roblayton)

Work is a glorious thing. If you are starting to grow lazy, I summon you back to joy. God made us to work. He formed our minds to think and our hands to make. He gave us strength — little or great — to be about the business of altering the way things are.

That is what work is: seeing the world, thinking of how it could be better, and doing something — from the writing of a note to the building of a boat; from the sewing of what you wear to the praying of a prayer.

Come, leave off sloth and idleness. Become what you were made to be. Work.

— John Piper (via jasminecrystal)
“I think the greatest weakness in the church today is that almost no one believes that God invests His power in the Bible. Everyone is looking for power in a program, in a methodology, in a technique, in anything and everything but that in which God has placed it—His Word. He alone has the power to change lives for eternity, and that power is focused on the Scriptures.”
— R.C. Sproul (via swimmertkesh)

Yes!! (via prodigaljoy)

(via prodigaljoy)

Your help needed.

Was encouraged to write as a way of ministry, growing and reflecting, but I have no idea where to begin. It’s not that I don’t have ideas I just can’t pick one. Does anyone have any suggestions?

if i was a…

if i was 6 feet

i think i would understand

how it feels to dunk a ball

i’d swear i’d be a better man

“Linsanity is making a comeback…”

9 threes. 9 threes baby!

Linsanity is making a comeback…”

9 threes. 9 threes baby!

Quick Thoughts from Exam Reflections: Should a Christian Argue for God’s Existence? If so, How?

Christians take Scripture to be the ultimate divine authority of all matters of faith and reason. Therefore, a Christian apologetic for God’s existence is only feasible if Scripturally commanded or non-contradictory to it. On examination, Scripture does advocate some notion of argument for God’s existence. Peter exhorts Christians to “never hesitate to give a reason for the hope that is in you” while Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill does seem apologetically relevant. However, biblical history shows that the existence of God is always presupposed rather than something argued for; “in the beginning God…”. Even Paul’s Areopagus appeal argues that the people contain some idea of an “unknown” God. Christians therefore should not argue for the existence of God but appeal to the God whom all men know.

            Christians should not argue that God can exist which places God as a possibility, based on the strength of the argument or evidence. In doing so, an unbeliever likewise is able to argue back against God’s existence, as though evidence could be both ways, and that he is capable of interpreting it and arguing the non-existence of God. That is, arguing for the existence of God appeals to the hearer’s judgment. How do we judge who is right or wrong based on two different subjective worldviews? Yet if Romans is correct, then our judgment is incapable of correct judgment without common grace, being darkened in its thoughts. Both non-believer and believer are using God’s reality to debate his existence.

            One ought to presuppose the existence of God and argue for the necessity of God; his certainty and the impossibility of the contrary. Scripture demands it ethically. Moreover, necessity entails existence. From the Christian view, if God does exist, has revealed himself as Lord over all, and places a sensus divinitatis in each individual human, then there is no arguing for God’s existence from a human foundation or start “from scratch”. To do so is to assume revelation is not clear enough both to the believer or the unbeliever; it denies that all know God. The true problem is that each individual’s thinking has been darkened and seeks to suppress the truth of God, to the point of denial of his existence. However, this denial is not a matter of argument or evidence but sin.

            A Christian should argue not just for the universality, necessity and certainty of God but also the whole of Christian theism as able to adequately provide a justification of all reality, ethics and knowledge. On the other hand, it is not just that Christianity is justifiable but that the contrary is unintelligible. It is the most concise philosophical position. Christianity must be demonstrated to be the only rational and true position because God’s creation and character can allow no other conception of reality or reality. It is more than irrational, it is metaphysically impossible and Scripturally false.

            Drawing from Kant, Christians should use the existence of God not as an argument but as a precondition for knowledge and reality. Since reality and knowledge metaphysically exists, God does. Unbelievers lack epistemological self-consciousness which means while many of their beliefs draw from a Christian worldview inevitably, they are unaware of it. When prompted they will suppress such truth yet will be unable to provide adequate justification for such beliefs without circular reasoning. A Christian should prompt unbelievers to be epistemologically self-conscious. As the unbeliever seeks to draw from God and yet suppress him ultimately results in an irrational-rational dialectic. The Christian should argue ad hominem exposing the unbeliever to the absurdity of his thinking based on his own assumptions and the only resolution in the Christian presupposition. The inability to interpret factual evidence correctly and justify it should be exposed and part of the way to repentance.

            Lastly, as the Fall shows that we are depraved epistemologically yet retain God’s image metaphysically, Christians should appeal to the metaphysical conscience and the person’s nature of being, the fact of his existence as due to God’s. They know God exists but have broken his law. The appeal must be to the depravity of humans and their inability to interpret right from wrong by suppressing God leading to their need for repentance and regeneration. Apologetics thus goes hand in hand with the gospel. Therefore, the argument for God’s existence is not knowledge of it, but rather an appeal to a person’s a priori and precondition for existence. However, care must be taken to appeal to the area of capacity (based on the situation) that needs God in order to be intelligible and justified. For Christians struggling with God’s existence, God’s existence can be reassured using fideist or evidential approaches due to the in-working of the Holy Spirit. 

            On a general note, when arguing for God’s existence, one must argue for the reformed faith and not general theism. Total depravity must be assumed, else man is just as capable of reasoning to God’s existence from natural revelation and can sufficiently judge the necessary preconditions for existence. That is, God is again dependent on the unbeliever’s ability for interpretation. Therefore in arguing for God’s existence, the Christian actually argues for the lack of need to prove God. Rather he is, and all creation knows, because by him and through him and for him they have their being.