The plot of the film entitled “The Ledge” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1535970/) centers around an openly atheist hero (Gavin) and a Christian villain (Joe). At a particular point during the film, the conservative Christian husband engages in some interesting dialogue with the atheist man trying to seduce his wife. It is most of this dialogue that this blog concerns itself with. The film’s director is an outspoken atheist named Matthew Chapman, who also happens to be the great-great-grandson of Charles Darwin. He claims that he didn’t make the film for atheists, but anyone who watches this movie may come away with a different opinion. Either way, not much appears on the web in the way of critiquing what must be characterized as an utterly irrational attempt at dispelling the Christian worldview. So I decided to provide a rational response to a particular section of the contrived dialogue that comprises the crux of the film’s aim. Specifically, I have identified at least 20 errors in reasoning that occur during the dialogue that the listener may or may not have picked up on.
It may or may not help to watch the dialogue before reading the response. The following dialogue occurs around 37:31 time marker of the film:
Believer (Joe):
Now, let me ask you. You ever look around and the world just seems empty to you?
Non-believer (Gavin):
Oh, yeah.
Believer (Joe):
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe it’s because you don’t have God in your life?
Non-believer (Gavin):
No.
Believer (Joe):
Never?
Non-believer (Gavin):
Look, Joe, when I was a kid, I totally believed in God. But, you know, you grow up. Well, I did. I looked around. I said, “Santa Claus: No evidence”. “The tooth fairy: No evidence”. “God, the same thing: No evidence”. And then you think, I wonder if I really need all these imaginary friends.”
Error(s) in Reasoning:
1. The “Crackers in the Pantry Fallacy”
By the accusation of “No evidence” the skeptic is clearly referring to the fact that he cannot (or has not) seen these “imaginary” persons (i.e. Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, God). Therefore, the atheist’s argument summarized says, “I don’t see invisible things; therefore invisible things aren’t there.” Clearly, such a position is absurd! One can’t see invisible things precisely because they’re invisible! Of course, you can’t physically appraise a non-physical thing. Many atheists have a tendency of assuming something doesn’t exist simply because they can’t apprehend it with their senses. Unfortunately, this approach to establishing the existence of things is circular, self-refuting and therefore false. Philosopher Dr. Greg Bahnsen when debating Athiest Gordon Stein referred to this mistake as the “Crackers in the Pantry Fallacy.“ To answer the question “Are there crackers in the pantry?” one only needs to go and look. But not everything in this world is proven in the same way [4]. For instance, even if there were no illustrations of the number two, no rational person would thereby conclude that the number two did not exist. It is rational to understand that the number two (just like all other abstractions) is not made up of matter but is invisible.
1B. Employing a faulty enthymeme
An enthymeme is a logical argument in which either the conclusion or one of the premises is missing because it is implied, and/or taken for granted. Think of the enthymeme as an arithmetic equation with a missing variable which the reader must supply (e.g. 2 + n = 5). “When someone makes a bad argument in the form of an enthymeme, it may be difficult to spot the error because the error is often in the unstated premise. Therefore, it is to our great advantage to learn to identify enthymemes and supply the missing premise. When the missing premise is absurd, we need to graciously point this out. Ask yourself these two questions: (1) What additional premise is needed to make this argument valid? (2) Is that premise reasonable?” [5].
Things that I have not seen do not exist (missing premise – unstated by the skeptic)
I have never seen the Santa Clause
therefore, Santa Clause does not exist
Things that I have not seen do not exist (missing premise – unstated by the skeptic)
I have never seen the tooth fairy
therefore, the tooth fairy does not exist
Things that I have not seen do not exist (missing premise – unstated by the skeptic)
I have not seen the biblical God
therefore, the biblical God does not exist
1C. Asserting the consequent
If a person does not exist then I will have never seen the person before
I have never seen God before
therefore God does not exist
2. Failure to understand the nature of evidence (A.K.A. The Presumed Neutrality Error)
It is important to understand that “evidence” does not speak for itself but must ultimately be interpreted from within a worldview. For this reason, it is impossible to provide evidence of any claim to someone who does not share the same worldview. This is why it is important, not to talk about what evidence exists for a particular worldview or claim, but rather, what is the nature of ALL evidence and what preconditions are necessary in order for ANY evidence to be meaningful in the human realm. Once you undertake this exercise, you will realize that only one of the two worldviews (Atheism or Christianity) makes sense of the world that we live in and furnishes us with the preconditions of intelligibility.
3. Relying on your opponent’s worldview in putting forth an argument
The appeal to evidence has a basis in the biblical worldview. In the atheistic worldview, the primacy of evidence has no basis. In the atheistic worldview, there is no reason why the skeptic shouldn’t believe the exact opposite of the atheist commitment to the primacy of evidence.
Believer (Joe):
So you think God’s just a pleasant thing? Like, it’s easier to believe than not?
Non-believer (Gavin):
Well, easier for you, clearly.
Believer (Joe):
No, Gavin, faith is hard. God tests you time and time again. Sometimes He even demands that you die for Him. You think that’s easy?
Non-believer (Gavin):
For people of faith, sure. That’s the problem. Like, I could never fly a jet into a building, but those 9/11 guys could ‘cause they had faith in an afterlife, not to mention 72 virgins, though why anyone would want virgins, I don’t know.
Error(s) in Reasoning:
4. Erecting a Straw Man
The Christian position is that followers of Christ may have to die as a result of enduring persecution, not as a result of perpetrating persecution (1 Peter 4:14-16). To misrepresent the Christian position is to erect a Straw Man; this is frequently done for the sake of encountering an easier argument to refute.
5. The Hasty Generalization Fallacy, Inductive Reasoning
Even if one could inductively demonstrate that faith in an afterlife makes a person suicidal, the argument would still be irrational since all inductive arguments are ultimately irrational. Without a completed induction (i.e. a deduction) one never has enough warrant for supposing that conclusions reached from such reasoning are of any truth value. In this case, however, the atheist does worse by arguing from an absurdly special case to a general rule. Yet, those who employ inductive logic, in spite of all its flaws, usually seek to advertise the use of a compelling data-set in order to convince onlookers that the resulting generalization is strong.
6. Relying on your opponent’s worldview in order to put forth an argument
Why is flying jets into a building in order to kill people bad? In the atheistic worldview, bad has an arbitrary definition; meaning, bad is whatever you want it to mean. Only in the biblical worldview is bad tethered to the dictates of God (i.e. thou shall not murder). That the atheist requires the biblical worldview to be true in order to put forth an argument undermines and contradicts any criticism the atheist puts forth.
Believer (Joe):
What did God do to you to make you so angry at Him? Look at the world that He created, all the beauty.
Error(s) in Reasoning:
7. Erecting a Straw Man
While some Christians may indeed invoke this line of reasoning, the bible never appeals to the “beauty” of the world in its Gospel presentation. On the contrary, the Bible suggests that the world is cursed (Genesis 3:17), a world that groans and travails in pain (Romans 8:22) and a world full of people who are deceitful and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). Consequently, the dialogue which is presented in this movie does not accurately depict the Christian position. As the “straw man” metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw-man argument (in this case, the lie or misapprehension that the world is shockingly different from the picture that the Bible paints) is typically weaker than the opponent’s actual position (i.e. that this evil world is exactly as God promised it would be), just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident but is part of what makes the Straw-man fallacy tempting to commit, especially to an irrational debater who is losing an argument.
Non-believer (Gavin):
Wars and plagues…and genocides, and earthquakes and tidal waves. And then, after all that suffering, what does your God do next? He sends most of us to hell.
Error(s) in Reasoning:
8. Relying on your opponent’s worldview in order to put forth an argument
If the biblical God does not exist (i.e. in the atheistic worldview) then despite their unpleasantness, there is nothing that is necessarily wrong with wars, plagues, genocides etc. The atheist’s appeal to the existence and repulsiveness of calamity only becomes sensible in a universe where these phenomena are necessarily considered bad or evil (i.e. the Christian worldview). So once again, the atheist has to rely on the biblical worldview in order to posit any argument whatsoever. Furthermore, in the biblical worldview, these phenomena are the result of man’s disobedience; hence, man is to blame for them not God. Lastly, men don’t go to Hell simply because God’s sends them there. Men go to Hell as a result of their own willing disobedience. The Bible teaches that the Gospel will be preached to every person and every person will have an opportunity to choose eternal life or Hell (Romans 10:18, Colossians 1:23, 1 Peter 4:6, 1 Peter 3:19, Matthew 13:18-23, Matthew 24:14).
Believer (Joe):
Well, not if you’ve been born again.
Non-believer (Gavin):
Right, the old baptismal Jacuzzi.
Error(s) in Reasoning:
9. Erecting a Straw Man
To equate being “born again” with the practice of baptism is to misrepresent the biblical doctrine of salvation. In the Bible, being born again is defined as being born of the Spirit of God (John 3:6). This birth takes place when a person decides to believe in the Gospel (John 1:12-13) and not by merely immersing one’s self in baptismal waters.
Believer (Joe):
You have to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. That is your only entrance requirement.
Non-believer (Gavin):
Okay, so the Hebs [the Hebrews], the Hindus, the Muslims, the atheists, the Buddhists, all damned, right?
Error(s) in Reasoning:
10. False Premise
Since there are Jews who are also Christians (sometimes called Messianic Jews), then the atheist is in error by asserting that the Jew, by virtue of his/her heritage is necessarily damned. In using the term “Hebs” perhaps the atheist meant to refer to those Jews who espouse Judaism but since this does not necessarily include all Jews, the premise is clearly an inaccurate one.
Believer (Joe):
They have to accept Jesus Christ.
Non-believer (Gavin):
And the Catholics, ‘cause they’re not born again, right?
Error(s) in Reasoning:
11. Erecting a Straw Man
Roman Catholics are not damned because they aren’t “born again” at least if using the atheist’s conception of being “born again.” Romans Catholics are lost because they have rejected the Bible’s clear teaching and embraced an organization which redefines the biblical Christ, preaches a Gospel different from that found in the Bible, and an organization which is specifically called out for destruction in the 17th and 18th chapter of the book of Revelations in the Bible (among other problems with the Roman State Church).
Believer (Joe):
Right.
Non-believer (Gavin):
Face it, man, it’s kind of crazy.
Believer (Joe):
No, it’s not crazy. God gives us free will for that purpose. Otherwise, we would just be puppets. Life would be… Life would be meaningless. That’s the beauty of eternal salvation. You see, anyone can go to heaven or hell, because anyone can be saved. It’s your choice.
Non-believer (Gavin):
Unless you’re a kid in China who gets hit by a bus and never even heard of this getting saved deal. Where’s his choice?
Error(s) in Reasoning:
12. Erecting a Straw Man
The Bible presents a starkly different view than the one being put forth by the atheist. For instance, the Bible teaches that all men know God innately (Romans 1:18-20) and that everyone will hear the Gospel (Romans 10:18, Colossians 1:23, 1 Peter 4:6, 1 Peter 3:19, Matthew 13:18-23, Matthew 24:14). Knowing that God exists, we are told in the bible, makes all men inexcusable (Romans 1:20). Because the standard which all men will be judged by is the gospel (Romans 2:15), then it follows that all men must have been confronted with the message of the gospel and must have either accepted or rejected it. No one in Hell will be able to say “I never had an opportunity to hear the Gospel.” It may be hard for the unbeliever to grasp how God can perform this act but we know that God promises this and that He is faithful (1 Thessalonians 5:24), omnipotent (Revelations 1:8) and just (Psalms 98:9, Genesis 18:25).
Believer (Joe):
Well, that’s why it’s so important to spread the gospel, try and save people.
Non-believer (Gavin):
[laughs] I’m sorry. I don’t mean to laugh. I just find this kind of fundamentalism incredible. I mean all of you, totally convinced you know exactly who God is and exactly how He wants to be worshipped and all without a lick of evidence He even exists. [laughs] No wonder there are so many holy wars. Without evidence, how else would you win this argument except by killing each other?
Error(s) in Reasoning:
13. The “Crackers in the Pantry Fallacy”
The non-believer is mistaken about how to go about testing for the existence of God (granting that one needs to, or can even prove that God exists ³). See previous “Crackers in the Pantry…” response for more details.
14. Failure to understand the nature of evidence.
Evidence requires a worldview which can provide a basis for its use. In the atheist’s worldview, there is no reason why one necessarily needs to use evidence or provide reasons for a particular belief. Since life in the atheist worldview is purposeless, then why should anyone therein be required to furnish a purpose for anything which they endeavor to do? The Christian here should challenge the atheist as to why he cannot rightly believe the exact opposite of the atheist does. After all, in the atheist worldview, contradictions are not composed of matter, therefore, if contradictions are to exist, they are simply an idea that pops into our brains based upon some chemical reaction. Each person’s unique matter produces unique chemical reactions and thus unique conceptions of what a contradiction is or is not.
15. Relying on your opponent’s worldview in putting forth an argument
Without using logic (i.e. the request for evidence), the atheist is unable to launch an attack against the Christian worldview. The atheist requires and uses logic in order to put forth an argument, yet the atheist cannot account for the existence of logic nor its laws. These laws are a prerequisite for all communication; for if the human mind is like a machine that is running software, then that software is exclusively logic. The laws of logic then, become indispensable for all thought and we must be able to account for these laws in any plausible worldview. For Christians, the laws of logic (i.e. Aristotelian logic) are derived from the Scriptures and as a result, have their basis in the bible. The laws of logic have no basis outside of the biblical worldview but especially in an atheistic worldview where matter is necessarily all there is. After all, can the immaterial laws of logic be detected using any scientific method or apparatus? Why should a law of logic in my mind and that I adhere to (i.e. the law of non-contradiction) conform to the same law in your mind since we are each composed of different matter and have different chemical reactions? Thus, the atheist again unwittingly borrows from the believer’s worldview when he talks about the primacy of evidence which is merely an unsophisticated demand for logic to prevail.
16. Relying on your opponent’s worldview in putting forth an argument
In the atheist’s worldview, what is so wrong with killing an opponent in order to win an argument? Again, nothing is necessarily right or wrong in the atheist’s mode of thinking. Furthermore, the common atheistic appeal to utilitarianism exposes more logical fallacies such as arbitrariness (i.e. how does one define the “greatest happiness for the greatest number” in a non-arbitrary way) and inconsistency (i.e. applying utilitarianism, Hitler’s Nazi Germany and other atrocities find their justification). “Utilitarianism commits the naturalistic fallacy as well, for the fact that men are motivated to act by pain and pleasure does not imply that they ought to be.”1
Believer (Joe):
See, I see evidence in all kinds of things.
Non-believer (Gavin):
So do they. And sooner or later, one of these guys who hears God in his head is gonna get ahold of weapons of mass destruction, and then, when it’s way too late, we’re finally gonna ask ourselves, “Why, after thousands of years of bloodshed, didn’t we at least try to do away with this insane concept of faith before it fucking killed us?”
Error(s) in Reasoning:
17. Relying on your opponent’s worldview in putting forth an argument
Thousands of years of bloodshed in the biblical worldview indicate a world that is suffering from the effects of sin. That bloodshed is wrong is understandable in the biblical worldview since God forbids murder. On the other hand, why are thousand years of bloodshed wrong in the atheistic worldview? Furthermore, it is absurd to think that in a completely atheistic world there wouldn’t be a similar (if not a worst) outcome since people can do whatever they want in a godless world without worrying about the consequences. The famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, affirmed (in response to a question about the atheist worldview) that a human’s best impulses have no basis in nature.2
Believer (Joe):
You know, maybe I’m just coming at this from a different angle.
Non-believer (Gavin):
And what angle would that be?
Believer (Joe):
Well, it’s not abstract to me. I go to the hospital, and I visit sick children, right? Two days ago, I was at the bedside of a dying child. His mother and father were killed in an auto accident. He’s about to pass as well. And he asks me if heaven really exists. I say, “Yes, it does. It’s where Mommy and Daddy are.” About an hour or so later, he dies with a smile on his face. So what would you have said in my place? Sorry, kid, no evidence?
Error(s) in Reasoning:
18. Erecting a Straw Man
The Bible doesn’t permit lying so this reply given by Joe would not be in line with the Christian worldview. The appropriate response is to tell the child that heaven exists and that God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.
Non-believer (Gavin):
No. I probably would have told him exactly the same lie you did. But, Joe, I’ll tell you one thing I damned sure wouldn’t have said, and that’s, “I’m sorry kid. You’re going to hell if you haven’t been baptized.”
Error(s) in Reasoning:
19. Erecting a Straw Man
As stated earlier, the Bible never suggests that anyone goes to hell because they aren’t baptized, so this is a Straw Man argument. Though, interestingly enough, we see an admission by the atheist that in his worldview, there is nothing wrong with lying especially when convenient; yet, he treats one “lie” with approval (telling a kid that heaven exists and his parent are there) and the other “lie” with disgust (telling a kid that he is going to hell if he isn’t baptized) all based on his whim. This further demonstrates the arbitrariness of the atheist worldview.
Believer (Joe):
Lord, forgive this man for his hard heart and his blasphemy. I think he has suffered much more than he knows, and he needs your love and support now more than ever.
Non-believer (Gavin):
No! Joe, I’m sorry, but you don’t know a damned thing about me, and I don’t need your help or your salvation or any other fucking bullshit you may have to offer.
Believer (Joe):
Don’t swear in front of my wife!
Joe’s Wife:
Gavin, I think you should leave.
Believer (Joe):
Don’t be so close-minded.
Non-believer (Gavin):
Are you willing to admit that God might not exist?
Error(s) in Reasoning:
20. Falsifying the Axiom
Attempting to falsify your opponent’s axiom is an error in reasoning because axioms, by definition, are not subject to falsification. Every person, without exception, has axioms as axioms are necessary for even the minutest piece of thought to occur.3 Humans, for instance, believe that their minds are reliable; even those who claim otherwise nevertheless rely on their minds to make this determination so they end up in the same camp. That God exists and that the 66 books of the Old and New Testament are the Word of God is axiomatic to the Christian worldview. Yet, that God exists and that His words are reliable is also a deduction from the Christian axiom of the Bible as God’s word, so this becomes a rudimentary confirmation of a cursory critique. This is not to say that all purported axioms are sound; rather, the validity of an axiom is established by performing an internal critique of the corollaries (inferences) and not by negating or falsifying the axiom. Therefore, in order to demonstrate the absurdity of the atheist’s request, the believer should respond by asking the atheist if he is willing to admit that his mind is unreliable. Since the reliability of the mind is a mandatory axiom held to by all communicating persons, any agreement by the atheist to do so would nullify this entire dialogue as unnecessary since it is pointless to argue with someone who is mindless.
Believer (Joe):
No.
Non-believer (Gavin):
So who’s being close-minded here?
FROM “THE LEDGE” movie
Footnotes:
- The Sine Qua Non of Enduring Freedom. John Robbins. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=271
- In Search of God, by A. P. Galling, AiG-U.S. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/04/01/in-search-of-god
- Atheism, Gordon H. Clark
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=50 - Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein
He says, “…that is a far, far cry from the way we go about answering questions determining the reality of say, barometric pressure, quasars, gravitational attraction, elasticity, radioactivity, natural laws, names, grammar, numbers, the university itself that you’re now at, past events, categories, future contingencies, laws of thought, political obligations, individual identity over time, causation, memories, dreams, or even love or beauty. In such cases, one does not do anything like walk to the pantry and look inside for the crackers. There are thousands of existence or factual questions, and they are not at all answered in the same way in each case.” [http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf] - Jason Lisle, https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/logic/logic-enthymemes/
The Christ Plus Zero Movement 
“I don’t see invisible things; therefore invisible things aren’t there.”
You got that wrong. “I do not perceive any invisible things nor is there any other evidence for them, therefore I assume they don’t exist.” It is irrational to assume the existence of something that you can’t perceive and have no other evidence for. This is not proof for it’s non-existence, but more than enough to assume non-existence.
Based upon your reasoning, we should assume that logic does not exist. Is this a conclusion that you are willing to live with?
Completely. Logic does not exist… as an entity. No doubt about that. Of course, as an abstract concept concerning a way to think, it can be perceived.
Do you really want to go down that slippery slope, reducing your god to an abstract concept? I’m perfectly fine with that 🙂
So first, you asserted the self-refuting rule that “It is irrational to assume the existence of something that you can’t perceive and have no other evidence for.” Responding to this claim, I gave you an example of something that cannot be perceived (according to your initial meaning of perception) and so now you try to change your rule by switching the word “something” (which commonly includes every type of “thing” within its semantic range) to the word “entity.” Ironically, the word “entity” is just as semantically encompassing to the word “logic” as the word “something” is. So, in your attempt to limit the semantic range of the word “something”, you have merely switched one acceptable word for another. You have unsuccessfully attempted to change the meaning of the initial rule that you authored, on the other hand, you have successfully committed the fallacy of equivocation since it is irrational to switch the original meaning of a term within an argument. In any case, my exception still stands since both words (something, entity) are equally satisfactory; both words allow for either “logic” or “God” within their semantic range.
Furthermore, you have also changed what you initially meant by the word “perceive.” At first, you used the word perceive to mean “to become aware of through the senses.” This is evident from your initial phrase “I do not perceive any invisible things.” Now you’re using the word perceive to mean “become conscious of.” This is evident from your latest phrase “abstract concept concerning a way to think” that “can be perceived.” As you can see you are again guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.
So as it turns out,
a. I am not wrong (at least based upon your responses).
b. Your rule is self-refuting; (since your rule is invisible and imperceptible by the senses) it excludes itself from existence. As a result, you are the one who is wrong.
c. You have committed the aforementioned fallacies in trying to defend your rule.
You try to nitpick your way around “thing”. Really? Thing in this context was something with an existence of it’s own. If you want to believe in logic this way, like you could meet it tomorrow in a bar, then yes, one should assume that logic does not exist, because you can’t perceive it. I never made any statement about abstract concepts – if you want to put your god there, feel free. With the word “entity” I only wanted to make that clear, but obviously, you prefer playing the quibbler. If that’s how you believe you can save your god, feel free. I’m sure many people will be totally convinced by that.
I am not nitpicking as you suggest. I am merely holding you to your own words and their definitions within the context that you placed them in. There is an old saying that goes: “if you don’t define your words then you don’t know what you are talking about.” In your case, you are using words in an unconventional sense and then getting upset with me (i.e. calling me a nitpicker and a quibbler) for calling you out.
In your rule (regarding “invisible things”) you used the word “something” (as you probably thought that it excluded incorporeal things) but sure enough, “logic” is something so your rule is wrong. But it gets worse because you then tried to switch the word “something” to “entity” (also probably thinking that this too excludes the incorporeal) and yet “logic” is also an entity (albeit an abstract entity) so your rule is still wrong. Even your latest reply betrays additional confusion on your part. For instance, you state: “Thing in this context was something with an existence of it’s own”; yet, EVERYTHING has “an existence of it’s own” (including logic) so you are still failing to understand what the words “something”, “entity”, or “existence” mean. I think I understand where you’re trying to go with your rule notwithstanding that it remains self-refuting and does not convey the meaning that you would like for it to convey.
However, what you apparently fail to realize is that EVERYTHING exists or is real. In logic, existence is not a predicate; it is merely the logical copula (a form of the verb “to be”). As Dr. Gordon Clark and Dr. John Robbins argue: since everything exist: God exists, dreams exist, hallucinations exist, myths exist, square roots exist, then the words exist and real are meaningless words. Dreams are real dreams, hallucinations are real hallucinations, and myths are real myths. It is a waste of time to try to prove the existence of God for everything without exception exists. For a word to mean anything it must also not mean something but the words exist and real apply to everything without exception. If in our world everything were black then the word black would be meaningless. The important question is not whether something is real or whether it exists but what it is. The right question then, is: what is God; not, is there a God? Is the God of the bible the true Creator of mankind or simply a myth?
These are characters in a fictional story. They each have their own flaws, which may include mistaken beliefs, questionable motives and bad decisions. Do you always pick apart movie characters as though they were a scientific exposition submitted for peer review? The story isn’t interesting if it depicts highly precise points of view that real people seldom hold. It is interesting if it portrays real patterns of thought and explores plausible consequences for those patterns.
No, I don’t “always pick apart movie characters as though they were a scientific exposition submitted for peer review”; in fact, this may be the only one in all of the site’s archives of blogs. My point in critiquing this dialogue from “The Ledge” movie is to demolish the erroneous yet potentially persuasive line of argumentation that may confuse folks into thinking that this is a plausible example of how to engage the biblical position in real life. I believe that movies can and do influence how people think. Even though it is fiction, I think movies like these play a major cultural role in the atheist war against the truths of the Bible.
Great observation for this “science” – I hated this movie and the director & the actors he chose for the parts.
Gavin should really talk to Kent Hovind instead; not a fake, falsely-erected “Christian” like Joe.
James, your right that this conversation does in fact follow the path in real life. I had a conversation this afternoon where the ‘atheist’ had almost verbatim the same comments and it would have been helpful having read this prior 🙂 On the no evidence point it was clear after several examples of (my own perception) evidence that he had no interest in any because the truth is that he, as I’ll assume the man in the movie as well have already made up their minds and so in that context no argument can even be made because nothing outside of what they have already decided even exists! when asked where are the miracles in todays world I pointed to one in particular that had just happened (shown on a news report) and his response was to say it was like a magic show that 30 people who were unrelated that has stopped to view a car accident just happened to ALL imagine the same man at the scene (who spoke to the victim) but later was not visible in anyone’s films. So apparently statistics also do not factor into logic as it’s statistically impossible for that many people to imagine the same thing unless at an actual magic show after suggestion is planted. In the end however I think it’s important for us to remember that we all have free will and in that the choice to believe or not to believe and sometimes there will be those who even in the face of evidence will never see it but blessed are the ones that believe and have not seen. 🙂 Thank you for your article
Tami,
I can certainly relate to your experience. I am involved in these types of conversations constantly and I do think there are folks out there that do not understand the nature of their own reality. Meaning, I think that there are people that have never sought to think about whether non-corporeal things (i.e. love, truth, justice, numbers, etc) are as real as tangible, material things. Of course, once they admit that logic though invisible is as real as a loaf of bread then they are necessarily forced to consider the reality that God who is also invisible might actually be who He says He is in the bible!
Seeing you passionlessly and robotically countering honest but flawed reasonings with flavorless and differently flawed reasonings is disgusting and a disgrace to Christendom. If you would honestly test your own logic against yourself, you would delete more than half of your arguments, especially that of openly saying that no logical mode of belief other than Atheism and Christianity exist, which is offensive even to a Christian. At the very start, right from the beginning, you ignore, conveniently, the fact that those same people who tell their children about Santa Claus are lying, which discredits them talking about God just from the fact that they are liars, which is very impactful and personal, with strong logical bindings that cannot be put into words. You show no compassion or charity. You’re a clanging symbol and a raging strawman in of yourself. Instead of answering serious questions, you use technicalities to dismiss them, which is like using Romans 9:20 to silence your opposition, except with more flourishes and time wasted on the debate team.