Ultimate Proof of Creation

Author Jason Lisle promises an "irrefutable argument for biblical creation and the Christian worldview in general." (128) But this "ultimate proof" fails its own standards of proof and ends up disproving itself.Lisle's ultimate proof consists of the following syllogism:PREMISE 1: Only if biblical creation is true can we have genuine knowledge of things.PREMISE 2: We have genuine knowledge of things.CONCLUSION: Biblical creation is true.While the technical form of this argument is valid its soundness depends on the truth of the premises, and therein lies the rub. Lisle proposes a three-pronged test for validating one's premises and presuppositions. They must be (1) logically consistent, (2) non-arbitrary, and (3) able to account for the preconditions of intelligibility. Lisle's ultimate proof is skewered by all three prongs.As a preliminary matter, Lisle essentially eliminates the "irrefutable" aspect of his argument by proposing tests for the proof's premises. Only the logical form of Lisle's syllogism is irrefutable. The substantive propositions in the premises of the syllogism are subject to tests of validity that Lisle himself proposes. By their very nature, these tests are incapable of producing irrefutable conclusions because they are a form of inductive argument and are not deductive as is the form of the syllogism. At best, an inductive argument can only produce a probable conclusion and can never produce an irrefutable conclusion. Lisle therefore defeats the very purpose of his ultimate proof from the get-go.Now on to the specific tests of the premises.I. THE ULTIMATE PROOF IS NOT SHOWN TO BE LOGICALLY CONSISTENTLisle states that the presuppositions of a worldview must be logically consistent. Even one seemingly insignificant contradiction will invalidate an entire worldview because from that single contradiction it is "literally possible to reach any conclusion whatsoever" no matter how absurd. (121) Lisle repeatedly asserts that the Bible is internally consistent and that it provides the only logically consistent worldview.Lisle advises Christians to challenge every non-Christian worldview on the basis of internal inconsistency. But when the consistency of the Bible is challenged, Lisle advises Christians to plead the Fifth: "don't answer," he says. (63) Rather than demonstrating the Bible's internal consistency, Lisle recommends avoiding the issue with this dodge: "I don't accept your claim that the Bible is full of contradictions. ... But for the sake of argument, if it did, why in your worldview would that be wrong?" (63) Here we have a blatant example of the fallacy of special pleading.As Lisle describes it, special pleading is "the fallacy of applying a double standard" in that "the arguer has applied a standard to his opponent that he does not apply to himself." (101) That is exactly what Lisle has done with the standard of logical consistency. He applies it to all other worldviews, but not to his own. While baldly asserting that the Bible is internally consistent, he never demonstrates that to be true and does not even allow the standard to be applied to the Bible. His "ultimate proof" therefore fails its own standard of logical consistency.II. THE ULTIMATE PROOF IS ARBITRARYThe second test of the validity of one's presuppositions is that they must not be arbitrary, by which Lisle means that there must be a good, independent reason for them. (8, 45) His ultimate proof fails this test as well.On obvious aspect of ultimate proof is its circularity. The proof, says Lisle, is that the Bible "must be true because if it were not, we could not actually know anything at all." (26) Both the truth of the Bible and its ability to account for knowledge are presupposed in the premises of this argument. Lisle readily admits this circularity and says that it is unavoidable. (129) He says there are two types of circular reasoning, one valid and one not, and claims that the ultimate proof utilizes valid circular reasoning.Invalid "vicious circles" are those that "merely assume what they try to prove." (110) On the other hand, a good circular argument does not merely assume its conclusion but "goes out of its plane" and "imports additional information to support its conclusion." (129) Lisle claims the ultimate proof is not a vicious circle because it imports additional information. He writes, "The Christian circle is not a vicious circle but one that can account for all human experience and reasoning." (130) Again he says that the ultimate proof is not a vicious circle because it argues, "The Bible must be the Word of God because it says so and if you reject this claim you are reduced to foolishness." (130) But there is no "additional information" here; the argument does not "go out of its plane." The two quoted statements from page 130 are merely restatements of Premise 1 that "only if biblical creation is true can we have genuine knowledge of things." The ultimate proof merely assumes what it tries to prove and is therefore an invalid vicious circle.Lisle fails to provide a good, independent reason for the ultimate proof that is not already assumed by its premises. That makes the argument arbitrary by Lisle's own definition and it therefore fails the second prong of Lisle's test.III. THE ULTIMATE PROOF DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE PRECONDITIONS OF INTELLIGIBILITYThe third prong requires that a worldview account for the preconditions of intelligibility. These preconditions include, among other things, the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the reliability of the senses, and the reliability of memory. To account for these preconditions, one must be able to answer the question "Why does it exist in the first place?" (38) The ultimate proof does not provide such an accounting.Lisle asserts that "the preconditions of intelligibility are all found in the biblical God." (Loc. 3152) But Lisle never accounts for the biblical God by answering the question, "Why does God exist in the first place?" He has therefore failed to account for the preconditions of intelligibility under the third prong of his test.Lisle is precluded from claiming that because God is the ultimate standard by and for which all other things are accounted He need not be accounted for Himself. Lisle insists that "if a person's ultimate standard cannot be proved, then that person does not actually know anything!" (128) Lisle has not accounted for his ultimate standard, and you know what that means.The Ultimate Proof of Creation has proven too much, and too little. It has proven itself to be unsound, while failing to prove that its author does actually know anything given the author's own test of knowlege, i.e., the ability to prove one's ultimate standard.

This is by far the best apologetic book I have read in a while. While only 254 pgs long the book is also quite detailed in the areas it covers. No, there is not enough space to deal with every difference between world views and which theory best fits the data discovered in geology, biology, astronomy, etc. Entire libraries have already been written in each camp. But as the book states evidences or data do not speak for themselves, but people interpret evidence based on their commitments to there A Priori ideas or presupposition. The worldview is indeed a powerful thing to theist and non-theist alike.The strength of this book is dealing with the world views themselves, and their own claim to be the authority that we should use when interpreting any data or idea. Naturalism, materialism, pragmatism, etc all claim to be the best lens to view the world through and each has it's dedicated proponents. The Biblical world view is no different, it too claims to be the "ultimate authority". The bulk of the book deals with the world views themselves and the inability to justify the presuppositions it's proponents declare.The author contends and shows quite convincingly that all world views counter to the Biblical one(God's revealed word is innerrant, sufficient and the ultimate authority)fall short in three major areas:1)arbitrariness of there beliefs in presuppositions they hold. they believe in an idea or presupposition (even a true one) without a reason/defense for doing so. The author describes the 4 most common types or arbitrariness and gives good examples.2)Inconsistency in the logic the view demands. Contradictions are inevitable with a faulty world view the longer the discussion continues and the closer you get to a false "ultimate authority". The author describes and gives examples of the four more commonly found inconsistencies in any false world view.3)Preconditions of Intelligibility. "a rational world view must be able to provide justification for those things necessary for logical reasoning." The many truths and presuppositions/axioms, we take for granted before we ever open our mouths in debate, can not be sustained in false world views. Dr. Lisle Give many examples of these with many left out for sake of space.The author also uses a couple of chapters dealing with the laws of logic and logical fallacies, to highlight the most common fallacies in argument. The main thrust of the book is not to ambush those you talk to with mountains of evidence and force them to submit, because this is not practical or Biblical. The focus is instead allowing people to question their own ultimate authority or world view and guide people toward the truth as Jesus did. While evidence is imporatnt, it too will pass through the lens of the world view and be spun to agree with it. It is the Spirit of God that opens men's eyes, (1 Cor 2) not human argument.The book is well written and easy to understand and apply.The deja vu came after I had finished reading appendix A,B,C at the end of the Book. This is a valuable section where Dr. Lisle uses actual letters and critisisms of His position to kindly illustrate the concepts he has discussed in the book (the arbitrariness, inconsistency, and preconditons of intelligibility of the arguments). Ironically enough, the one star reviews could easily have the same done to them and be printed in a future volume. Only one world view meets the qualifications to be recognized as the ultimate authority and thus is the ultimate proof. The others will fall away.Norman Geisler's Encyclopedia of Christian apologetics is a valuable resource and "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" is a good Book. You can also purchase scores of books that will deal with the evidences that or being interpreted by every camp. This Book out preforms them all and is truly a debate stopper.Well done.

Really well written book by Dr Jason Lisle. This will set up anyone to evangelize or defend the Gospel. I've now purchased another 4 copies and passed them to friends and people that love 'the truth'.Thank you for such a confidence boost in understanding how to discern and understand truth vs fallacy.

A must read for anyone who has not considered the nature of science or the necessity of God and His revelation for a coherent universe and further, understanding of it. Took me a while to complete as I had the Kindle version but I thoroughly enjoyed reading and taking time to think through certain concepts on my own.Keep up the good work Dr Lisle!

this book really helps to solve many debates not only the debates over the origins. I read it and enjoyed the illustrations and the ideas that have been planted in it. Dr.Lisle have done a great job.believer or skeptic it does not matter, you would like it, it does not matter if you agree on what conclusions you make but it matters that you read how to be consistent and rational>

I like the fact that the information is presented in such a way that even a non-genius like me can understand it and use it with people who have been fooled by the lie of evolution.

This is by far, the best apologetic book that I ever read. It is written in a way that makes you comprehend easily what is at stake. Worth it