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

I thank Meatros for this debate. I do not believe he has shown that the Naturalist has better reason to believe in the UoN. For, if “it works” were a good justification, why cannot the Christian use this as well? And if he could justify his determinism, why would not I, as a Calvinist, believe less in the UoN? Not only do his justifications need to stand for him to win, but his criticisms as well. Naturalism My opponent has adopted soft instrumentalism? If Meatros does believe that scientific beliefs “are in some sense inventions that capture something useful in the structure of more robustly real phenomena, and yet at the same time they are not mere fictions”, then he has fled towards realism. But, if our theories are not “mere fictions” and do describe something real (or “more robustly real”), and ought to be judged by their usefulness, then the argument is flipped. It would seem that the usefulness now flows from the UoN. For, if nature were not uniform, how could beliefs that reflect reality make “useful” predictions? Ultimately I think this reduces to: it is useful to assume the UoN because nature is uniform. To say that assuming the UoN is useful in everyday life is only to grant what the presuppositionalist is arguing: that the Naturalist uses the assumption in everyday life because it is useful but cannot account for it. Meatros pointed out that he is not representing all naturalists. I say that is fine and I don't expect him to, just as I am not defending all Christian views (e.g. Clark's). On the other hand, the beliefs I espouse are based upon a Reformed doctrine of God. I can grant that Meatros is a determinist and allow him to defend his view; in fact, that is what I am calling him to do. For, if he is a determinist, what is it that makes things determined? For, it seems to me that to proposes a Naturalistic world is deterministic is to assume the UoN as the thing that “determines” things. So, what is the basis of Meatros' determinism/belief in the UoN? Is it, as Meatros suggests, that entities are constituted by certain characteristics and how it interacts with other entities? Is this really the ontological basis for the UoN given by Naturalism? Let's say that entities that posses the set of characteristics X are labeled A, and those possessing Y are labeled B. What is it that maintains that an entity in class A will continue to be in A, rather than at some point take on the characteristics of Y and switch to class B? Is there some particle or entity that a Naturalist would hold is immutable? Now, one might answer that an entity that switches from A to B is no longer the same entity, because X made it what it is. But then, why can't things be in flux? And if entities, why not the “laws” by which they interact? Christianity My opponent has granted that Miracles presuppose the UoN. Yet, now they pose a problem which seems to stem from not being able to distinguish between them and the UoN. Miracles are either distinguishable from the UoN but presuppose it, or they are not distinguishable and pose no problem. But, suppose that there is a long lasting miracle that operates in a predictable way (e.g. the orbit of the moon)? This blurs the lines between providence and miracles. It also assumes that the purpose of miracles – they do have purposes, after all – are not tied into their being unusual. The word miracle is not always used for what are identified as miracles in the Bible. Sometimes these things are just called “wonders” or “signs and wonders”. (1) Meatros is fond of quoting Kelly Clark in opposition to my views. Clark's misguided view of Hebrew writing aside, he seems to make a division between moral and spiritual wisdom and epistemology. He has to divide these things, in order to maintain autonomy. So, if I have a view of epistemology that differs from Clark and I don't find Clark convincing, resulting in me dismissing the Bible and Christianity's claims, am I off the hook morally and before God? After all, my autonomous reasoning did not lead me to God and how else would I get to that belief? If I'm not off the hook, then why? What if I'm just not smart enough to figure out the Bible is true and that I ought to repent? How does Clark distinguish between moral acts and epistemology unless there is no obligation to believe truth, no obligation to submit to God's revelation? I take the Bible as divine revelation and therefore as authoritative. As Van Til explains: As self-explanatory, God, naturally speaks with absolute authority. It is Christ as God who speaks in the Bible. Therefore the Bible does not appeal to human reason as ultimate in order to justify what it says. It comes to the human being with absolute authority. It's claim is that human reason must itself be taken in the sense in which Scripture take it, namely, as created by God and as therefore properly subject to the authority of God.(2) And, We have felt ourselves compelled to take our notions with respect to the nature of reality from the Bible. It will be readily conceded that such a notion of reality as we have presented could be received upon authority only. Such a notion of being as we have presented is to be found nowhere except in the Bible. The Bible is taken so seriously that we have not even left any area of known reality by which the revelation that comes to us in the Bible may be compared, or to which it may be referred as to a standard. We have taken the final standard of truth to be the Bible itself. (3) Van Til is not alone or new in these ideas. He stands firmly in the Calvinist tradition. Calvin wrote: ...the highest proof of Scripture is uniformly taken from the character of him whose Word it is. ...our conviction of the truth of Scripture must be derived from a higher source than human conjectures, Judgments, or reasons; namely the secret testimony of the Spirit. ...Profane men think that religion rests only on opinion, and, therefore, that they may not believe foolishly, or on slight grounds, desire and insist to have it proved by reason that Moses and the prophets were divinely inspired. But I answer, that the testimony of the Spirit is superior to reason. For as God alone can properly bear witness to his own words, so these words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men, until they are sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. (4) I point this out to explain the nature of a revelatory epistemology in opposition to Clark's, which, it seems, does not allow for the Spirit to attest to Scripture, or to give illumination in the process of interpreting Scripture. As far as issues of canonization, transmission, etc. I can't give a full defense/explanation within this debate. How do I know that God will remain immutable? Well, either he is immutable or he isn't. If he is immutable one day and not the next... he changed and wasn't immutable... It leads to absurdities. Immutability is a natural outworking of God's aseity and eternality, and, more importantly his self-revelation. (5) So, its part and parcel with Christianity. Meatros may have gotten hung up on the Flood, but there is much to be noticed in Genesis 1. Poythress writes: Creation is the foundation for God's continual providential governance of the world. ...the acts of creation enjoy a continued relation to the present acts of governing. For example, God created plants on the third day. ...First, God's word caused the first springing up of plants. Second, God's word describes and governs the continued springing up of plants.(6) Soli Deo Gloria Sources 1. For example: Ex. 7:3, Deut 6:22, Ps 77:11 Dan 4:2-3. 2. Van Til, Cornelius. A Christian Theory of Knowledge, p. 15. 3. Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith, p. 32. 4. Calvin, John. Institutes 1.7.4 5. Mal 3:6, Jas 1:17 6. Poythress, Vern. Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach, p 77.