the Naturalist has better reason for the assumption that nature is uniform then the Christian

After perusing his blog I can tell that he will be a formidable challenge! It is my hope that our exchanges are productive and that we both learn something from them. Opening Statement The problem of induction is an old one. Why should we believe that the future will be like the past? In an article responding to Victor Reppert, Richard Carrier writes: “Of course, even following Hume and Reppert, inductive reasoning is fundamentally circular for everyone, even for God. Everyone is in the same boat, theist or atheist. All one can do is posit a hypothesis (e. g. "God exists" or "Nature is consistently uniform") to explain the evidence (consistent uniformity) and then constantly test that hypothesis (so far, it has never been falsified, and has been abundantly verified). To accept this line of reasoning, all one need do is reject the groundless and self-defeating methodological principle "Maybe, therefore probably. " And the theist is in no better position than an atheist here. ”(1) It would appear that Carrier is correct. In the first part of my opening statement I will give reasons the naturalist has for presupposing that nature is uniform. The second half will show how the Christian worldview is insufficient for the task. The primary basis on which we can presuppose the uniformity of nature is pragmatism. To put it simply, it works. To be more specific, it is the instrumentalist view: “In the philosophy of science, instrumentalism is the view that a scientific theory is a useful instrument in understanding the world. A concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality. ” (2) In addition to usefulness, there is no reason to assume that anything would interfere with natures’ uniformity. According to Francois Tremblay: “We know that we can trust our past experiences because we live in a self-contained (i. e. material) universe. There is nothing that can come and muddle the action of natural law on myself or my environment. I am perfectly comfortable knowing that the Sun will rise tomorrow, because the law of gravity will never be suspended. ” (3) I think that Tremblay's reasoning about a deterministic universe gives us prima facie reasons for presupposing the uniformity of nature on a naturalist universe. I have provided two reasons for the naturalist to accept the uniformity of nature. The Christian denial that nature is uniform The Christian worldview is the view that supernatural entities act within the natural universe, violating natural law through miracles. Wikipedia says: “A miracle is an event attributed to divine intervention. Sometimes an event is also attributed (in part) to a miracle worker, saint, or religious leader. A miracle is sometimes thought of as a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature. Others suggest that God may work with the laws of nature to perform what people perceive as miracles. [1] Theologians[who? ] say that, with divine providence, God regularly works through created nature yet is free to work without, above, or against it as well. [2]” (4) I will disregard the contention that God works within the laws of nature, if my opponent wishes to take this track, then it is on him to explain this and to show how this belief is consistent with the Bible. How miracles cross paths with induction can be illustrated with the primary question philosophers bring to the table with regards to induction: how do you know the Sun will rise tomorrow? To the person living on the opposite side of the earth during the days of Joshua there was no guarantee that the Sun would rise tomorrow! Joshua: “10:12 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. ” (5) This, of course, is not the only time when, according to the Bible, God acts within nature. Matthew: “28:2 And behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. ” (6) Not only is an angel descending from heaven to interfere with nature (rolling the rock), God has caused an earth quake. In the previous chapter (Mathew 27), God causes darkness for three hours (7), God causes another earth quake which opens graves that contained dead saints who came back to life (8). These events are not natural occurrences. They are miracles of God, otherwise known as God's interfering with nature. In the Revelation, we see more great earthquakes, the Sun becoming black, the Moon becoming the color of blood, stars of heaven falling to earth, and every mountain and island ‘moved out of their place’ (9). I could go on (10), I’ve made a preliminary case. If we are to believe the Bible, then we have a deity who actively interferes with nature, therefore we could not consistently hold to nature being uniform. How is the Christian to know when God is going to interfere with nature in the future? Does the Christian know the mind of God to such an extent that he or she would know exactly when God will interfere with nature in the future? If so, how does the Christian know this? Since, in his introduction, Brian has indicated that he is a Van Tillian, I will also provide an argument against his justifying the uniformity of nature. Van Till believed that we should reject the notion of autonomous reasoning. (11) On his blog, Brian seems to endorse this view, stating: "So, when Christians speak apologetically, we ought to be careful when talking about reasoning apart from God. If we mean that we can reason apart from giving God his due recognition then yes we can, albeit distorted and leading to futility. If on the other hand, we also say that we can reason apart from God’s general revelation, or on our own – we implicitly deny his sovereignty, our dependence, and the need for him to be pre-emanate in all things. " (12) Kelly Clark identifies the fatal flaw in this view: "Here is the problem; Each person must decide (tacitly or explicitly) that a purported revelation is revelation. Each person must decide that what is being said in some particular holy writ is the voice of God. Each person must decide what is being said and then what it means. And each person must decide what it means today that God said something a long time ago. At every level, human reason is operative. " (13) If we cannot reason autonomously, then how can Brian possibly argue that the Bible states that God maintains the uniformity of nature? In conclusion, I have provided two reasons for the naturalist’s use of the uniformity of nature and I have provided two reasons that Brian can't trust that nature is uniform. (1) . http://www.infidels.org... (2) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) . http://www.strongatheism.net... (4) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (5) . http://www.blueletterbible.org... (6) . http://www.blueletterbible.org... (7) . http://www.blueletterbible.org... (8) . http://www.blueletterbible.org... (9) . http://www.blueletterbible.org... (10) In Luke 9:39, the Bible states that a demon possesses a man, thereby showing that other entities aside from God interrupt nature . http://www.blueletterbible.org... (11) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (12) . http://www.briancbiggs.com... (13) Five Views on Apologetics, Kelly James Clark, pg 262