The Sad Link Between Broken Homes And Atheism

My friend,

Thank you for responding and continuing our discussion. I didn’t catch your name though, so please share that with me when you can. You have raised some excellent points, and I will try to address them all. For clarity’s sake, I will put your comments in brackets.

//You gave evidence that children have a tendency to see agency. It says nothing about your particular god. As we already know from the sad cases of feral children, these children do not know your god at all.//

Part of what I shared from a respected psychiatrist demonstrates evidence that children are able to recognize agency. However, the quotation I shared included a bit more than that. Let me share the same quotation with you again.

“SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH on children’s developing minds and supernatural beliefs suggests that children normally and rapidly acquire minds that facilitate belief in supernatural agents. Particularly in the first year after birth, children distinguish between agents and nonagents, understanding agents as able to move themselves in purposeful ways to pursue goals. They are keen to find agency around them, even given scant evidence. Not long after their first birthday, babies appear to understand that agents, but not natural forces or ordinary objects, can create order out of disorder. Before children start school, they see the natural world as purposefully designed—even in ways that religious parents would not teach or endorse. This tendency to see function and purpose, plus an understanding that purpose and order come from minded beings, makes children likely to see natural phenomena as intentionally created. Who is the creator? Children know people are not good candidates. It must have been a god. Gods are not just humans with the ability to make mountains, trees, and butterflies, however. Early default assumptions about minded agents make it easy for children to understand gods as having full-access knowledge, superperception, superpower, immortality, and perhaps moral goodness. In fact, on some of these dimensions, children show the capability of reasoning in a theologically accurate way before being able to reason accurately about human beings on the same dimensions. This collection of religious ideas is among the features of what I call natural religion. In this chapter, I describe natural religion and also how it deviates from theological beliefs. Though children have strong natural tendencies toward religion generally, these tendencies do not inevitably propel them toward any one religion. They still have a lot to learn.” (Justin L. Barrett, Born Believers: The Science of Children’s Religious Belief, 135-136 (Kindle Edition): New York, NY: Free Press)

Barrett’s studies over years of time demonstrate that children have an ingrained understanding that there is a God. Please notice that Barrett clearly acknowledges that the children do not have an understanding of “which” particular God exists: only that there is a supernatural Creator. Indeed, please consider that his studies have demonstrated that there are certain characteristics of this Creator that children have an implicit understanding of:

“Early default assumptions about minded agents make it easy for children to understand gods as having full-access knowledge, superperception, superpower, immortality, and perhaps moral goodness. In fact, on some of these dimensions, children show the capability of reasoning in a theologically accurate way before being able to reason accurately about human beings on the same dimensions.”.

I do not believe that we can learn everything we need to about God from nature. The Bible very clearly points out mankind’s need for what we often refer to as “special” revelation (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:3).

//An atheist is one who has concluded that a particular god or gods don’t’ exist, so you are an atheist too. I do not believe in any gods.//

So by your definition of “atheist,” are you leaving room for the existence of any God at all?

//You do not believe in any gods but your own version of the Christian one.//

Actually, that is not accurate. You apparently don’t know what I believe, since I have clearly pointed out elsewhere that I DO believe in multiple gods. Indeed, the Bible is clear on this matter (Exodus 12:12; Psalm 96:5 (LXX); 1 Corinthians 8:1-5). Let me encourage you, with all due respect, to not assume you know what I believe. He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him (Proverbs 18:13).

//Your claim that I would have to be a god, a divine omnipotent omniscient being to know that your god doesn’t exist fails since your god is defined quite well and has many attributes that we can look for. That god, the god of the Christian bible, cannot be shown to exist.//

I humbly disagree. As I will make clear shortly, the classical philosophical arguments for the existence of God fits perfectly with the Christian God.

//You can try to claim your god is some vague featureless thing, but that is not the god you worship. It is not, for instance, a worm on Ceti Alpha V.//

I have no need to claim that God is some vague featureless thing. He has revealed Himself quite clearly through nature and through His Word.

//it is notable that Christians have been trying to make their god more and more vague with claims like it is a “ground of being” from people like Karen Armstrong and Tillich.//

I am unfamiliar with the authors you have referenced.

//Christians try to have evidence but fail rather amusingly.//

Christians are to honor the law of rationality, which states that we should only accept those conclusions which are warranted by the evidence. Paul reminds us that the words of the Gospel are words of truth and reason (Acts 26:25). God invites people to come now and reason together (Isaiah 1:18).

//The cosmological argument never gets to your Christian god, Mark. Any theist can use it. It also fails since a force can be the first cause, no intelligent blood demanding god needed.//

Actually, the cosmological argument teaches us many attributes about the nature of God. Let’s think through things together.

The cosmological argument is based upon the philosophically and scientifically grounded law of causality, which states that everything which begins to exist must have a cause. It further points out that the universe began to exist, leading to the conclusion that the universe therefore has a cause. Yet the only sufficient cause of the universe is an eternal supernatural Being (i.e., God). Therefore, God exists.

The first premise of the argument (anything which begins to exist must have a cause) is not only intuitively obvious, but has been documented by the scientific evidence of the entire span of human existence. Denying this principle is tantamount to claiming that “nothing” can somehow “cause” something. Will you argue that there are things which can be brought into existence from nothing?

The second premise (ie., that the universe began to exist) is equally demonstrable, from a mathematical and scientific vantage. Let’s notice some testimony from the famous agnostic astronomer, Robert Jastrow. He pointed out in his book, God And The Astronomers:

“…three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, and the life story of the stars— pointed to one conclusion: all indicated that the Universe had a beginning” (111).”

There really cannot be much doubt today-speaking from a scientific point of view-that the natural universe had a beginning. John Blanchard has well written about the implications and evidences of this:

“Not everyone welcomed the Big Bang concept, some disliking the idea that the universe had a beginning because it strongly implied a supernatural creation. In 1948 Sir Fred Hoyle helped to formulate the ‘steady-state’ theory. This maintained that the universe was infinite and eternal and that the entire cosmic process was kept in balance as matter simply sprang into existence out of nothing at a regular rate to replace the matter which had ‘died’ through expansion. The biggest problem with this view is that it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, sometimes known as the law of conservation of mass and energy. This fundamental law, which Isaac Asimov called ‘the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make’,24 states that matter and energy can neither be self-created nor destroyed…The First Law of Thermodynamics clearly supports the idea that an expanding universe must have had a beginning but could not have created itself. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that any isolated physical system becomes less ordered and more random over time, provides another piece for the cosmic jigsaw. Applied very simply and generally, it means that our entire universe is running down. As the rotation of the planets and their moons slows down, and as stars (and whole galaxies) burn themselves out, the matter in our universe is becoming more and more disorganized as its energy is dissipated. The logical consequence of this is that the universe cannot be eternal. If it were, the stars would have ceased to shine long ago and all the energy in our universe would have long since been evenly spread throughout space. At the same time, this suggests that if the universe is becoming less ordered, it must have been more ordered in the past, and have had a highly ordered beginning.” (John Blanchard, Does God Believe In Atheists? 5601-5620 (Kindle Edition); Carlisle, PA; EP Books USA)

So, the beginning of the universe is another premise which is proven.

That therefore leads to the next premise: since everything which begins to exist must have a beginning, and since the universe had a beginning, then something created the universe.

Yet this Cause must be something which is SUPERnatural, since the laws of the natural universe had a beginning.

“In a stunning confirmation of the book of Genesis, modern scientists have discovered that the universe was created in a primordial explosion of energy and light. Not only did the universe have a beginning in space and time, but the origin of the universe was also a beginning for space and time. Space and time did not exist prior to the universe… The story begins about a century ago, as scientists began to look for evidence that our universe—not just our planet or our galaxy but all the matter that exists—had a beginning. The reason for the search is that one of the most universal laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, predicts such a beginning. The law simply states that, left to themselves, things break down. We see this all around us: highways and buildings decay and collapse, people age and die, metals rust, fabrics become threadbare, rocks and coastlines suffer erosion… .Scientists use the term entropy as a measure of the level of disorder, and the second law shows that the total entropy in the universe is continually increasing. The second law has a startling implication. Consider the example of the sun. As time passes its fuel reserves decline, so that eventually the sun will run out of heat and go cold. But this means the fires of the sun must have been ignited at some point. The sun has not been burning forever. And this is also true of other stars. They too are gradually burning out, suggesting that they too were set aflame some time ago. As the great English astronomer Arthur Eddington once put it, if the universe can be compared to a clock, the fact that the clock is continually running down leads to the conclusion that there was a time when the clock was fully wound up. The universe originated with its full supply of energy and that is the fund that has been dissipating ever since. These facts were known as far back as the eighteenth century, but scientists didn’t know what to make of them… Scientists call the starting moment of the universe a “singularity,” an original point at which neither space nor time nor scientific laws are in effect. Nothing can be known scientifically about what came before such a point. Indeed the term before has no meaning since time itself did not exist “prior to” the singularity. Once upon a time there was no time. Jastrow’s implication was that such concepts, which border on the metaphysical, give scientists a very queasy feeling. If the universe was produced outside the laws of physics, then its origin satisfies the basic definition of the term miracle. This term gives scientists the heebie-jeebies… Many attributes of the creator remain unknown or hidden, but there are some conclusions that we can reasonably draw from what we know. As the universe was produced by a creative act, it is reasonable to infer that it was produced by some sort of mind. Mind is the origin of matter, and it is mind that produced matter, rather than the other way around. As the universe comprises the totality of nature, containing everything that is natural, its creator must necessarily be outside nature. As the creator used no natural laws or forces to create the universe, the creator is clearly supernatural. As space and time are within the universe, the creator is also outside space and time, which is to say, eternal. As the universe is material, the creator is immaterial, which is to say, spiritual. As the universe was created from nothing, the creator is incomprehensibly powerful or, as best as we can tell, omnipotent.” (Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great About Christianity? 116-126 (Kindle Edition); Washington, D.C.; Regnery Publishing Inc.)

We can also learn more about this Cause from the law of causality.

First, this Cause must be eternal. If it had a beginning at some point, then it simply becomes another part of the created universe which needs an ultimate cause. An infinite regress of past caused beings would lead to an infinite number of contradictions which would make existence impossible. Therefore, there is need for an unpaused Cause which explains both its’ own Existence, and that of the universe.

Second, this Cause would have to be fully self-sufficient in its’ attributes. This is due to the fact that this Cause must be eternal. It depends on nothing for existence outside of itself: therefore it must be fully self-sufficient. This is also another way of saying that it cannot be imperfect in any attribute, since an imperfection is that which is lacking in some way.

Third, this Cause would have to be immaterial, since the universe of matter had a beginning.

Fourth, this Cause would have to be non-spatial, since the universe of space had a beginning.

Fifth, this Cause would have to be timeless, since the universe of time had a beginning.

Sixth, this Cause must be changeless in its’ Being, since it exists outside of time. Since change is the progression of something from one moment to the next, and since this Cause exists outside of time, it must therefore be changeless.

Seventh, this Cause must be unimaginably powerful, since it brought the universe into existence and maintains it.

Finally, this Cause must be a Person, for at least two simple reasons. Number one, this Being CHOSE to initiate the universe. Since it could not be acted upon by outside forces (being non-Contingent and perfect in its’ nature), it must have freely chosen to initiate the universe. Secondly, the evidence from the teleological argument (more on that soon) clearly shows that the Intellect which created the universe must be unimaginably intelligent.

//The design argument also fails since, 1. It never gets to your god, and 2. There is no evidence of design at all, unless you want to explain why your god is either incompetent at design or malicious considering the failure of DNA, the sun giving us cancer, and the fact that thousands of people choke to death.//

As noted above, the cosmological argument stands clearly on logical and scientific evidence. So also does the teleological argument. The fact that the universe exhibits undeniable evidence of design may be seen in several ways.

Let’s start with the universe itself in regard to life existing here on Earth.

“Conversely, as mentioned in the discussion of the cosmological argument (see chapter 2), the logic of cause and effect infers that every effect has a cause, so everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Because the Big Bang “effect” marks the beginning of space, time, matter, and energy, there must have been something—or Someone—that caused it. Sir Arthur Eddington, who experimentally confirmed Einstein’s general theory of relativity, lamented this finding: “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order is repugnant to me and I should like to find a genuine loophole.”… Physicist Stephen Hawking claims, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.” Further, contrary to popular opinion, the Big Bang was not a chaotic explosion, but rather a very highly ordered event requiring vast amounts of information. Hawking wrote, “If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present state.” However, if the expansion rate were any faster, matter would have spread out too rapidly to allow galaxies, stars, planets, or anything else (like you or me!) to form. Another prominent astrophysicist, George Smoot, described the creation event as “finely orchestrated.” Mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, an associate of Hawking, showed that the highly ordered initial state of the universe is something that could not have just randomly occurred even by the slimmest chance…. Princeton theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson echoes this impression: “In some sense, the universe knew we were coming.” In other words, many highly regarded scientists recognize that the Big Bang creation event was much too finely tuned and improbable to be some cosmic accident.” (Leslie Wickman, Ph.D., God Of The Big Bang: How Modern Science Affirms The Creator, 516-534 (Kindle Edition); Brentwood, TN; Worthy Books)

Again, we could consider the testimony here of famous scientist Albert Einstein.

“The deeper one penetrates into nature’s secrets, the greater becomes one’s respect for God.” (Einstein, as quoted in Denis Brian, Einstein: A Life, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1996, 119). “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” (Einstein, as quoted in Ronald Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, London, Hodder and Stoughton Ltd., 1973, 33). “My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior Spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality.” (Einstein 1936, as quoted in Helen Dukas, and Banesh Hoffmann, eds. Albert Einstein: The Human Side. (New Glimpses from His Archives). Princeton University Press, 1979, 66). “Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality or intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. This firm belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling, in a superior Mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.” (Einstein, as quoted in Ronald Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, London, Hodder and Stoughton Ltd., 1973, 255). “Strenuous intellectual work and the study of God’s Nature are the angels that will lead me through all the troubles of this life with consolation, strength, and uncompromising rigor.” (Einstein, as quoted in Alice Calaprice, ed. The Expanded Quotable Einstein. Princeton University Press, 2000, ch. 1). “The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior Reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God.” (Einstein, as quoted in Libby Anfinsen, Memorial speech for Christian Anfinsen at Memorial Garden Dedication, Weizmann Institute. November 16. The Christian Anfinsen Papers. Profiles in Science. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 1995). “We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a Universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” (Einstein, as quoted in Denis Brian, Einstein: A Life, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1996, 186). “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a Spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe –a Spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.” (Einstein, as quoted in Dukas and Hoffmann, Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Princeton University Press, 1979, 33).

You mention DNA. I am so thankful that you brought that up! Let’s take a look at some of the amazing facts about the DNA code.

“To liken DNA to a book is a gross understatement. The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell is equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size.23 It would take a person typing 60 words per minute, eight hours a day, around 50 years to type the human genome. And if all the DNA in your body’s 100 trillion cells was put end to end, it would reach to the sun (90 million miles away) and back over 600 times.24” (Ray Comfort, How To Know God Exists: Scientific Proof Of God, 41 (Kindle Edition); Alachua, Florida; Bridge-Logos)

We could also consider here the testimony of Francis Collins, the scientist who lead the Human Genome Project.

“The human genome consists of all the DNA of our species, the hereditary code of life. This newly revealed text was 3 billion letters long, and written in a strange and cryptographic four-letter code. Such is the amazing complexity of the information carried within each cell of the human body, that a live reading of that code at a rate of one letter per second would take thirty-one years, even if reading continued day and night. Printing these letters out in regular font size on normal bond paper and binding them all together would result in a tower the height of the Washington Monument. For the first time on that summer morning this amazing script, carrying within it all of the instructions for building a human being, was available to the world. As the leader of the international Human Genome Project, which had labored mightily over more than a decade to reveal this DNA sequence, I stood beside President Bill Clinton in the East Room of the White House, along with Craig Venter, the leader of a competing private sector enterprise. Prime Minister Tony Blair was connected to the event by satellite, and celebrations were occurring simultaneously in many parts of the world. Clinton’s speech began by comparing this human sequence map to the map that Meriwether Lewis had unfolded in front of President Thomas Jefferson in that very room nearly two hundred years earlier. Clinton said, “Without a doubt, this is the most important, most wondrous map ever produced by humankind.” But the part of his speech that most attracted public attention jumped from the scientific perspective to the spiritual. “Today,” he said, “we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, and the wonder of God’s most divine and sacred gift.” Was I, a rigorously trained scientist, taken aback at such a blatantly religious reference by the leader of the free world at a moment such as this? Was I tempted to scowl or look at the floor in embarrassment? No, not at all. In fact I had worked closely with the president’s speechwriter in the frantic days just prior to this announcement, and had strongly endorsed the inclusion of this paragraph. When it came time for me to add a few words of my own, I echoed this sentiment: “It’s a happy day for the world. It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God.” What was going on here? Why would a president and a scientist, charged with announcing a milestone in biology and medicine, feel compelled to invoke a connection with God? Aren’t the scientific and spiritual worldviews antithetical, or shouldn’t they at least avoid appearing in the East Room together? What were the reasons for invoking God in these two speeches? Was this poetry? Hypocrisy? A cynical attempt to curry favor from believers, or to disarm those who might criticize this study of the human genome as reducing humankind to machinery? No. Not for me. Quite the contrary, for me the experience of sequencing the human genome, and uncovering this most remarkable of all texts, was both a stunning scientific achievement and an occasion of worship. Many will be puzzled by these sentiments, assuming that a rigorous scientist could not also be a serious believer in a transcendent God. This book aims to dispel that notion, by arguing that belief in God can be an entirely rational choice, and that the principles of faith are, in fact, complementary with the principles of science. This potential synthesis of the scientific and spiritual worldviews is assumed by many in modern times to be an impossibility, rather like trying to force the two poles of a magnet together into the same spot. Despite that impression, however, many Americans seem interested in incorporating the validity of both of these worldviews into their daily lives. Recent polls confirm that 93 percent of Americans profess some form of belief in God; yet most of them also drive cars, use electricity, and pay attention to weather reports, apparently assuming that the science undergirding these phenomena is generally trustworthy. And what about spiritual belief amongst scientists? This is actually more prevalent than many realize. In 1916, researchers asked biologists, physicists, and mathematicians whether they believed in a God who actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray in expectation of receiving an answer. About 40 percent answered in the affirmative. In 1997, the same survey was repeated verbatim—and to the surprise of the researchers, the percentage remained very nearly the same.” (Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, 1-4 (Kindle Edition, emphasis added, M.T.); New York, NY: Free Press)

You ask about the failures in DNA, as well as the many problems and evils that we see in nature. These are, of course, excellent questions. Fortunately, the Christian has excellent answers. The Bible (which is the proven Word of God, as much evidence may be supplied to demonstrate) reminds us that the universe in the beginning was perfect (Genesis 1:31). It was the misuse of freewill (i.e., sin) that introduced suffering and death (physical and spiritual) into our world (Genesis 2:15; 3:17-19; Isaiah 59:1-2; Romans 5). We live in a universe that has rejected the Word of God, and the consequences of this are a world filled with suffering. Yet Christians live in hope of a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:13).

The teleological argument points to the existence of God, and it demonstrates that this Being is personal.

//The moral argument fails since Christians can’t agree on what morals their god has supposed “given” them or show their god exists at all.//

Actually, the moral argument is another powerful evidence of the existence of God. There is, as the Apostle Paul discusses, a law “written on the heart” of mankind (Romans 2:14-15). This law is made evident throughout every culture of mankind, where certain moral standards are found identical, regardless of religious and social convention.

Let’s have some evidence, shall we?

The famous (former) atheist, C.S. Lewis, wrote:

“I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.” (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 5-6 (Kindle Edition); HarperCollins E-Books)

Going a little deeper on this subject:

“NDErs commonly experience two things in the presence of this Being of Light: an overwhelming love and compassion, and a life review where this God of light emphasizes the impact of their actions on others….People commonly say, “All religions basically teach the same things.” There’s some truth to this. It’s actually uncanny how similar the moral laws are across cultures— in ancient China, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, and Rome; across Anglo- Saxon and American Indian culture; through Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, and Muslim sacred writings— all basically agree in this area. Former Oxford scholar C. S. Lewis gives evidence of this common moral law summarized below: Don’t do harm to another human by what you do or say (the Golden Rule). Honor your father and mother. Be kind toward brothers and sisters, children, and the elderly. Do not have sex with another person’s spouse. Be honest in all your dealings (don’t steal). Do not lie. Care for those weaker or less fortunate. Dying to self is the path to life. 10 In just about every culture and world religion since the beginning of recorded history, we see this common moral law. “They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts” (Romans 2:15 NLT).” (John Burke, Imagine Heaven: Near-Death Experiences, God’s Promises, And The Exhilarating Future That Awaits You, 160-161 (Kindle Edition); Grand Rapids, Michigan; Baker Books).

This “law written on the heart” is a powerful example of God’s existence. However, mankind has been tainted with sin in this world, which is why we need special revelation from God mankind (i.e., the Bible).

//You also have the problem that your morality is subjective since you excuse your god for doing things you would find horrific if a human did the same. Your morality is subject to who someone is, not any objective morality always associated with a certain action.//

Your statement here deserves some serious examination.

First, we need to make an important point here in regards to morality and God. Whether the God of the Bible falls short of the standard of morality or not, it does not effect the fact that the eternal God revealed in nature exists. That is why atheism will always fail: because the evidence of God’s existence is seen all around us.

Second, it is important to point out that the nature of morality is such that an action may at times be dependent upon the motivations and identity of the agent in question. For example, if I were to see a stranger’s children misbehaving and I took it upon myself to discipline them, this would be inappropriate: yet if the child’s parents disciplined the child, then this would be acceptable.

In other words, some actions may be morally acceptable for one agent, and not another. We recognize this principle in numerous ways (such as in the example provided above).

In the same way, the morality of God doing or allowing something may be morally justifiable even if it is considered “immoral” to sinful mankind.

Third, I do not believe that God is morally imperfect. Indeed, the God of the Bible is perfect in all of His attributes, including His morality.

Fourth, there is a need to remember the difference between what God actively does and what He allows freewill agents to do. A person dying in the world through choking is not God’s fault, for example. Choking is often the unfortunate result of living in a sin-cursed world, where suffering and death are very real factors (as noted above).

If a person raises a child in a home where morality and compassion are taught and embraced, and he goes on to become a mass murderer, should the parents of that child be held responsible? The Bible says “no” (Ezekiel 18:20), as does the “law written on the heart.”

Fifth, Christians point out that God has not simply uncaringly watched the world of evil and suffering that man has created: instead, He entered into that world, with the express purpose of showing that He shares in our pain, and wants to redeem this sad world of humanity. Jesus is the greatest Answer to mankind’s struggle with evil, pain, and suffering.

“And, yes, he’s right—we can’t imagine it. But we can believe it. God does, in fact, weep over every sparrow and grieve over every evil and every suffering. So the suffering that Christ endured on the cross is literally unimaginable. It’s not just what you and I would have experienced in our own finite human agony, physical and mental, but all the sufferings of the world were there….God’s answer is the Incarnation. He himself entered into all that agony, he himself bore all of the pain of this world, and that’s unimaginable and shattering and even more impressive than the divine power of creating the world in the first place. “Just imagine every single pain in the history of the world, all rolled together into a ball, eaten by God, digested, fully tasted, eternally. In the act of creating the world, God not only said, let there be pretty little bunny rabbits and flowers and sunsets, but also let there be blood and guts and the buzzing flies around the cross. In a sense, Templeton is right. God is intimately involved in the act of creating a world of suffering. He didn’t do it—we did it—yet he did say, ‘Let this world be.’ “And if he did that and then just sat back and said, ‘Well, it’s your fault after all’—although he’d be perfectly justified in doing that—I don’t see how we could love him. The fact that he went beyond justice and quite incredibly took all the suffering upon himself, makes him so winsome that the answer to suffering is—” Kreeft’s eyes darted around the room as he searched for the right words. “The answer,” he said, “is . . . how could you not love this being who went the extra mile, who practiced more than he preached, who entered into our world, who suffered our pains, who offers himself to us in the midst of our sorrows? What more could he do?” I said, “In effect, then, the answer to Templeton’s question about how could God bear all that suffering is—he did.” “He did!” Kreeft declared. “God’s answer to the problem of suffering is that he came right down into it. Many Christians try to get God off the hook for suffering; God put himself on the hook, so to speak—on the cross. And therefore the practical conclusion is that if we want to be with God, we have to be with suffering, we have to not avoid the cross, either in thought or in fact. We must go where he is and the cross is one of the places where he is. And when he sends us the sunrises, we thank him for the sunrises; when he sends us sunsets and deaths and sufferings and crosses, we thank him for that.”..We were clearly moving toward the climax of our discussion. The clues Kreeft had mentioned at the outset of our interview were converging, and I could sense an increasing passion and conviction in his voice. I wanted to see more of his heart—and I wouldn’t be disappointed. “The answer, then, to suffering,” I said in trying to sum up where we’ve come, “is not an answer at all.” “Correct,” he emphasized, leaning forward as he pleaded his case. “It’s the Answerer. It’s Jesus himself. It’s not a bunch of words, it’s the Word. It’s not a tightly woven philosophical argument; it’s a person. The person. The answer to suffering cannot just be an abstract idea, because this isn’t an abstract issue; it’s a personal issue. It requires a personal response. The answer must be someone, not just something, because the issue involves someone—God, where are you?” That question almost echoed in his small office. It demanded a response. To Kreeft, there is one—a very real one. A living One. “Jesus is there, sitting beside us in the lowest places of our lives,” he said. “Are we broken? He was broken, like bread, for us. Are we despised? He was despised and rejected of men. Do we cry out that we can’t take any more? He was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. Do people betray us? He was sold out himself. Are our tenderest relationships broken? He too loved and was rejected. Do people turn from us? They hid their faces from him as from a leper. “Does he descend into all of our hells? Yes, he does. From the depths of a Nazi death camp, Corrie ten Boom wrote: ‘No matter how deep our darkness, he is deeper still.’ He not only rose from the dead, he changed the meaning of death and therefore of all the little deaths—the sufferings that anticipate death and make up parts of it. “He is gassed in Auschwitz. He is sneered at in Soweto. He is mocked in Northern Ireland. He is enslaved in the Sudan. He’s the one we love to hate, yet to us he has chosen to return love. Every tear we shed becomes his tear. He may not wipe them away yet, but he will.” (Peter Kreeft in Lee Strobel, The Case For Faith: A Journalist Investigates The Toughest Objections To Christianity, 45-52 (Kindle Edition); Grand Rapids, Michigan; Zondervan)

Sixth, Christians point out rightly that God is not finished! He is still working in this world even today (Romans 8:28), and His promise of the Second Coming of Jesus provides great comfort.

“The argument against God from evil makes some arrogant assumptions. Just because evil is not destroyed right now does not mean that it never will be. The argument implies that if God hasn’t done anything as of today, then it won’t ever happen. But this assumes that the person making the argument has some inside information about the future. If we restate the argument to correct this oversight in temporal perspective, it turns out to be an argument that vindicates God. 1. If God is all-good, He will defeat evil. 2. If God is all-powerful, He can defeat evil. “3. Evil is not yet defeated. 4. Therefore, God can and will one day defeat evil. The very argument used against the existence of God turns out to be a vindication of God in the face of the problem of evil. …God isn’t finished yet. The final chapter has not been written. Apparently God would rather wrestle with our rebellious wills than to reign supreme over rocks and trees. Those who want a quicker resolution to the conflict will have to wait.” (Norman L. Geisler & Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook On Christian Evidences, 64-65 (Kindle Edition); Grand Rapids, Michigan; Baker Books)

//Anthony Flew was not a “world-renowned atheist”, that is an exaggeration made by chritsians who desperately need to use the appeal to authority logical fallacy. He was an atheist who ended a deist, who also has no more evidence for that than you do for your imaginary friend.//

Perhaps you would like to consult the December 9, 2004 Associated Press headline about Flew? “Famous Atheist Now Believes in God: One of World’s Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence.”

Or, perhaps you would like to consider the following testimony about Flew.

“This book was inspired in part by the many atheist intellectuals who have examined the intellectual evidence for the existence of God, and who have over time come to the conclusion (based on the evidence) that God does indeed exist. A recent example was Prof. Anthony Flew who was possibly the world’s leading atheist philosopher for 50 years. In the last few years, he found that there is enough scientific evidence to conclude rationally that there is a God, and he became a Theist (a word that he then applied to himself). E.g., see “There is a God: How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind” by Anthony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese. The title of this current book is intended to be a tip of the hat to this example of (inspiration by) Prof. Anthony Flew’s change of mind (as he moved from Atheism to belief in God based on the totality of the evidence).” (John M. Kinson, There is A God: How an Atheist Scientist Changed his Mind (God & Science Book 1), 161-167 (Kindle Edition))

//Flew, like theists makes baseless claims. No evidence that laws of physics etc need a god to exist. No evidence of design as I noted above. No evidence that nature is evidence for any god or a specific one. That is the usual Romans 1 nonsense that not one theist can show is true. The classic philosophical arguments, as I have noted, never get to any god at all. Flew discovered nothing.//

I believe the facts speak for themselves.

//Unsurprisingly, there is no evidence that your bible is true, nor that jesus christ existed or was resurrected. Let me guess, you’ll try to claim that mentions of christians and what they believed is “evidence” that what they believed was true. Funny how that doesn’t work at all.//

Having clearly demonstrated the evidences that there is a God from the irrefutable cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments, I would be happy to now list some of the evidences that the Bible is the Word of God. Evidences may be provided from the supernatural unity of the Bible, prophecy and fulfillment, the scientific foreknowledge of the Bible writers, and archaeological confirmation. If you would be interested in continuing our discussion on this topic, please let me know and I will be happy to do so.

In the same way, the evidences for the Deity of Jesus Christ (including His existence and resurrection from the dead) are more than convincing. The evidence that Jesus existed could be provided from the genuineness and credibility of the New Testament Gospels, the hostile Jewish witnesses, and from the Greek and Roman historians. Here is a little to consider from the Jewish sources:

“We learn from the Jewish sources that Jesus was the firstborn son of Mary (the rabbis). He had followers (Josephus) or gathered disciples (the rabbis); he taught them and worked miracles (Josephus, the rabbis). He was put on trial and died by formal execution (Josephus, the rabbis). Either the Jews alone carried out his trial and execution (the rabbis), or the Romans did in some cooperation with Jewish leaders (Josephus). Jesus’ followers claimed that he rose from the dead (the rabbis), and his movement continued (Josephus, the rabbis). Jesus’ brother James was a leading figure in Jerusalem after Jesus’ death (Josephus).” (Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the Historical Jesus), 2102-2107 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company)

We could also consider the testimony of former skeptic, Gary Habermas, who carefully studied what may be learned of the existence and resurrection of Jesus outside of the Gospels. He notes:

“We have examined a total of 45 ancient sources for the life of Jesus, which include 19 early creedal, four archaeological, 17 non-Christian, and five non-New Testament Christian sources. From this data we have enumerated 129 reported facts concerning the life, person, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus, plus the disciples’ earliest message. This is not to say that all of these sources are of the same quality (for a variety of reasons). But these facts (and those mentioned below) are spread out across all of the categories and types of writers and are rather evenly balanced. There can be little doubt that this is a substantial amount of pre-and non-New Testament material for Jesus’ existence and for numerous facts about his life. In light of these reports we can better understand how groundless the speculations are that deny his existence or that postulate only a minimal amount of facts concerning him. Much of ancient history is based on many fewer sources that are much later than the events that they record, as we have seen. While some believe that we know almost nothing about Jesus from ancient, non-New Testament sources, this is plainly not the case. Not only are there many such sources, but Jesus is one of the persons of ancient history concerning whom we have a significant amount of quality data. His is one of the most mentioned and most substantiated lives in ancient times.” (Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus by Gary Habermas, 185 (Kindle Edition): Joplin, Missouri: College Press Publishing Company)

//Funny how this lord “richly blesses” no one at all, including his cultists. Christians starve, Christians get hacked to death by machetes, etc. Nothing shows that Christians are better off, or better than, anyone else.//

You are certainly correct that Christians are not “better than, anyone else.” We are fallible imperfect followers of the perfect Son of God (1 Timothy 1:15), and have no right to boast of being “better than, anyone else” (Titus 3:1-7).

God indeed blesses every person in this world. Sometimes we just don’t open our eyes to see His blessings. He has certainly blessed you in amazing ways. You have existence; health enough to allow you to consider very important matters; the means to communicate through electronic means; air to breathe; gravity to ground you to this Earth; His patience to grant you time for repentance; His Son Who died for your sins and arose again so you can be saved; and a million other factors that perhaps you are unaware of.

As for being “better off” than others, that depends on your definition of what “better off” means. Jesus certainly never promised that His followers would have an easy go of things in this world. He said that we will suffer tribulation (John 16:33), that the world would hate us (1 John 3:13), that following Him means taking up our cross daily (Luke 9:23). Indeed, all those who desire to live godly lives in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution (2 Timothy 3:12). However, what we receive by the grace of Jesus is far more than the world can take from us. We have peace with God through Jesus (Romans 5:1-2), salvation from Hell (Matthew 10:28), the hope of eternal life (Titus 1:1-2), promises that God will be with His people through all of their trials (Romans 8:37-39), the knowledge that God is working in our struggles and trials to bring about good (Romans 8:28), a Savior Who loves and understands us (Hebrews 4:15-17), and the promise of a Home where all the wrongs are righted and where God will bless His people beyond their understanding (1 Peter 1:3-5) when Jesus comes again (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). We are blessed to be part of God’s church (His family, spiritual army) in this world (Acts 2:47; 20:28). We have brothers and sisters who love us and encourage us (Romans 12:14-21; Galatians 6:1-3). My friend, Christians receive numerous blessings-I have only touched on a few-that make the trials of this world pale in comparison.

//And curious how Christians claim each other aren’t Christians at all, with each sect sure that it is the only right one, claiming the rest have, at best, a corrupted version, and at worst the rest will go to hell. You are Church of Christ, and gee there are catholics, mormons, anabaptists, calvinists, methodists, etc all with the same claims of “truth” you do. How do you propose to show that your version is the only right one?//

You raise another excellent point here: denominationalism is a horrible plight upon the world. Jesus said that when His followers were not one, one result would be disbelief in Him (John 17:20-21). There is a spiritual war going on (Ephesians 6:10-18), and one of Satan’s greatest tools is spreading division through demonic doctrines (1 Timothy 4:1-5). The solution that the church of Christ proposes is not original to the church of Christ: it has been God’s Way from the beginning.

Jeremiah 6:16-Thus says the LORD: “Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’

We all need to humble ourselves and return to the Word of God. The early church was united together on the Word of God (Acts 2:42), to such a degree that they were one heart and one soul (Acts 4:32).

//it’s notable that not a one of you self-professed christians can do what jesus promises per the bible.//

Christians have the ability to do all that Jesus promised, because there is a power working in us that goes beyond what we can think or imagine (Ephesians 3:20). Can you provide some examples of what you mean by this statement?

Again, thanks for the great discussion. Looking forward to further dialogue, and praying that the Lord will richly bless you.

Thanks for your very interesting response Vel. Let’s get right into it, shall we?

//I’m not your friend.//

Your loss.

//You can call me Vel.//

Very gracious.

//The studies you gave that children see and assume agency, that is not recognizing it, which implies it exists. Still no evidence for your god. The article admits that there is no one god recognized, so again, nothing shows that any god exists…Barret’s studies, again, do not show that there is a god or gods, only that children think there is. That child could be taught that any religion is true with that baseless assumption. And to claim that the children know what they are describiginb as a god is rather funny since children don’t know what morality is, what immortality is, etc. Those are all simply assumptions by a Christian who needs to show his god exists.//

Actually, the evidence I shared demonstrated that from earliest ages, children recognize that there is a supernatural Creator Who is vastly powerful, intelligent, and perhaps morally good. This knowledge is not based upon any particular religion or religious belief or background (as the evidence I pointed out demonstrates).

I would appreciate you trying to deal with the actual evidence that I present.

//It doesn’t matter what you believe, if you have no evidence for your baseless opinions.//

Strange that I have presented several sources of evidence, yet you claim that I have not presented any.

//“Special Revelation” is calimed by other cults too. Funny how not a one of you can show your god exists much less that you get special information from it.//

The difference between those religions and Christianity amounts to the subject of proof. Christianity has an abundance of evidence to draw upon (some of which I have presented).

But don’t take my word for it. Let’s look at an example of how a man was converted from Islam to Christianity. As he set himself to diligently investigate the facts, what did he find?

“To be a Muslim, one must confess the shahada: “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger.” The best way to assess the truth of the shahada is by investigating the prophetic status of Muhammad and the claim that Allah inspired the Quran. Even though my heart’s deepest desire was to defend the Islamic faith and remain Muslim, the truth became unavoidable: There was no argument I could use to defend Muhammad’s prophetic status, and there was no compelling reason to think the Quran was from God. Once again, it was not just that history did not support the traditional narratives of Islam, but rather that history proved to be entirely incompatible with Islamic origins. When using the same standards to assess the origins of Islam as are used to assess the origins of Christianity, we find a gaping hole in the historical record. The contemporary records of the mid-seventh-century Arabs, supposedly the very earliest Muslims after Muhammad’s time, show that they were not referred to as Muslims and that they never referred to their holy book, never mentioned Muhammad’s name, never referred to Mecca, and did not pray toward Mecca. Given the vast array of records from that time, especially those of the many nations conquered by Arabs, this is not an argument from silence. The contemporary historical record is simply incompatible with the traditional narrative of Islam. Similarly, the history of the Quran is incompatible with the narrative we were taught as Muslims. We had been told that the Quran had never been changed, every letter remaining exactly the same from Muhammad’s time until today. On the contrary, the Quran had been fundamentally altered, being very fluid originally as an oral text and then evolving into a written text that remained in various degrees of flux even to this day. The traditional Islamic narratives of Muhammad and the Quran are fundamentally incompatible with the historical records. These are the pillars of Islamic confidence, and their foundations are ungrounded. This meant that if I wanted to remain Muslim, I would have to do so based on some reason other than objective truth. I could remain Muslim because I liked the Islamic message, because I desired the discipline of sharia, or because I just wanted to keep my family happy. But if there was one thing Islam had taught me, it was that I must submit to God and not to man. That meant following the truth, no matter where it led. Of course, the very reason I had been investigating the case for Islam was to respond to the case for Christianity. Now I had explored every recourse, and I had to be honest with myself and assess for the last time the case for Christianity and the case for Islam. THE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY OVER ISLAM After thoroughly investigating the truth claims of Islam and Christianity, even while a Muslim, there was no avoiding the obvious truth: The evidence in favor of Christianity was far, far stronger than the evidence for Islam. The three core claims of Christianity, that Jesus died by crucifixion and rose from the dead proving he was God, are very firmly grounded in history. Even though Islam denies these points, I concluded that the historical evidence for Jesus’ death on the cross was as strong as anything historical could be, that his resurrection from the dead was by far the best explanation of the facts surrounding his crucifixion, and that his claiming to be God was the best way to account for the proclamation of the early church. These conclusions were not idiosyncratic but were based on the consensus of scholars across the theological spectrum. 1 In other words, the truth of the Christian message makes the most sense of the historical evidence. By contrast, neither of the core truth claims of Islam, that Muhammad is a prophet and that the Quran is the Word of God, are compelling. Muhammad’s character does not make one think he was a man chosen by God, nor was he prophesied in the Bible. He had no miraculous scientific insights either recorded in hadith or in the Quran. The Quran, for that matter, cannot be shown to be inspired by its literary quality, by fulfilled prophecies, by mathematical patterns, or by miraculous preservation. The traditional Islamic narrative is incompatible with both the history of Christianity and even with its own historical records. To believe in the Islamic account of Christian origins while taking the historical records seriously, we would have to conclude that Jesus was an utterly incompetent Messiah and Allah is a deceptive God. The historical record of Islamic origins makes many scholars wonder whether Muhammad existed, and it makes scholars think the Quran was originally far more fluid and indeed a very different kind of book than it is today. The Islamic narratives of Christian origins, and even of Islamic origins, are incompatible with history. In other words, to believe the truth of Islam is to ignore the historical evidence. As a Muslim, I wanted to base my beliefs not on blind faith, not on what appealed to me, and not even on my family’s heritage. I wanted to ground my faith in reality. If I wanted to take the records of history seriously, I had to abandon my Islamic faith and accept the gospel. But that would come at a tremendous cost, essentially everything I had ever known. Is it worth sacrificing everything for the truth? Is the truth worth dying for?” (Nabeel Qureshi, No God but One: Allah or Jesus? (with Bonus Content): A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam and Christianity, 289-291 (Kindle Edition): Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan)

Interesting that the more sincere and earnest that people are to studying the facts, they see the truthfulness of Christianity.

To others who may be reading this exchange, please notice: Vel no doubt believes that he is a champion of atheism, boasting even of having debated Ray Comfort. Please consider the abject lack of evidence for atheism thus far presented. This does not reflect the weakness of the man (assuming that Vel is male). It simply reflects the weakness of atheism in light of the facts. I would like nothing more than to see Vel become a Christian, as well as everyone that I am blessed to interact with.

//“God” only means the Christian imaginary friend. The term “god” doesn’t have to be capitalized. There is no evidence for any god that humans claim exist and worship. No evidence for any omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent entity. Could there be one? Maybe, but with no evidence, no reason to assume so.//

I am glad to hear that you leave open the possibility of there being a God, Vel. By this, you demonstrate some wisdom since often atheism has been the mantra that “I know God does not exist.” Utter foolishness to claim to know this, wouldn’t you agree? Your position may therefore in many ways be seen more along the lines of agnosticism, since the agnostic claims there is not evidence to know if there is a God or not. Indeed, you remind me of that famous and world-renowned (former) atheist we have been discussing, Antony Flew. Several decades ago, he met brother Thomas B.Warren in public debate. Flew defended the proposition, “I Know That God Does Not Exist.” Yet before too long, it was evident that he was merely affirming agnosticism, and not atheism: for there is no case that can be made where the atheist “knows” that God does not exist.

Warren pointed out:

“He persists in claiming that he is involved in what he calls “negative atheism” which seems to amount to nothing more than agnosticism! I warned you in the beginning to see and determine if Dr. Flew would do this. He is in the habit of doing it. He is in the habit of shifting away from a thorough-going atheism in which he affirms, as he has in this debate, “I know that God does not exist,” to merely saying, “I do not believe in God.” But, Dr. Flew, we have no intention of letting you make that kind of shift unless you plainly reject the proposition you signed. It is your responsibility to offer an argument, the conclusion of which is, “I know that God does not exist”! That argument must be sound, it must have true premises, and until this good moment that argument has not been made. He has, it is true, tantalized us with some suggestions of some sort of inconsistency in regard to the concept of God and perhaps some empirical facts in this world. He has further tantalized us with the second point that the question of the existence of God is not testable. Is it not strange that he has a sort of an immune position? When I asked him the first two questions tonight regarding what would have to have occurred, or to occur, in order to prove that your proposition is false, he makes no reply whatsoever. You see, his proposition, his position, is immune from “testing.” When we ask him the status of his falsifiable principle, that is, what would have to happen or to occur to falsify the principle upon which you build your whole case, he is as silent as the stars. There is absolutely nothing he can say about it. He has invented something that applies only to theism.” (Antony Flew, Thomas Warren, Warren-Flew Debate On The Existence Of God, 1103-1113 (Kindle Edition): Glasgow, KY: National Christian Press)

Yet Flew, after a lifetime of studying science and the philosophical arguments for the existence of God, acknowledged that that there is a God. Let’s have his testimony again, for you to carefully consider.

“Moving on now from the parable, it’s time for me to lay my cards on the table, to set out my own views and the reasons that support them. I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature. But it is not science alone that has guided me. I have also been helped by a renewed study of the classical philosophical arguments. My departure from atheism was not occasioned by any new phenomenon or argument. Over the last two decades, my whole framework of thought has been in a state of migration. This was a consequence of my continuing assessment of the evidence of nature. When I finally came to recognize the existence of a God, it was not a paradigm shift, because my paradigm remains, as Plato in his Republic scripted his Socrates to insist: “We must follow the argument wherever it leads.” (Antony Flew & Roy Abraham Varghese, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, 88-89 (Kindle Edition); New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishing Inc.)

Since Flew had a bit more time to study on the matter, perhaps you would be wise to carefully consider some of his thoughts? Especially since you yourself have now acknowledged that //maybe// there could be a God?

//So, you claim you believe in multiple gods. How since yours is supposedly the only one per Christianity? Those other gods mentioned are claimed by Christians to be “demons”, etc, but not gods. Per your claim, they are all equal to yours. Now, how does that work since those gods are also creator gods too? You see, I don’t think you believe in other gods at all.//

I am so thankful that you mentioned this Vel! Your comments bring up the importance of context in studying the Bible. As you have claimed that the Bible contradicts itself, this will be a great example for us to study about alleged contradictions.

“Context” is a very important subject when studying any document. Many alleged Bible contradictions may be cleared up by studying the factor of context. Case in point: how we define the word “god” or “gods” has very important ramifications. The word can have many meanings, depending on the context. For example, you are correct that the Bible teaches that there is only one true (eternal) God. We learn this from both Scripture, and from nature (i.e., especially from the cosmological argument).

“We know from the cosmological and divine design (teleological) evidences of the universe that God must be infinite because He created all space, all time and all matter from nothing. Infinite simply means that He is self- existent, non- spatial, immaterial, timeless, personal, unimaginably powerful and supremely intelligent etc. In other words, there is nothing lacking in Him. The fact that God is infinite impliedly rules out all pantheistic religions such as the New Age Movement, Hinduism and some forms of Buddhism that equate God to the universe as we have seen that universe is not infinite as it had a beginning and was designed by another cause. This fact also disproves polytheistic religions (the belief that there are many gods) such as Mormonism, as there logically cannot be more than one omnipresent infinite being. Let me explain more simply: If there was more than one God (e.g. God “A” and God “B”), then to distinguish one from the other they must differ in some way. If God “A” is infinite then God “B” must be less than infinite (i.e. infinite minus something), as the definition of infinite means that God “A” lacks nothing. Therefore, if God “B” is less than infinite he is not God! Therefore, we can only logically conclude that there can only be one Infinite Being or God who is transcendent or outside all time, all space and all matter.” (Paul Ferguson, God And The Atheist: A Lawyer Assesses The Evidence For The Existence Of God, 1133-1144 (Kindle Edition); Greenville,, South Carolina; Ambassador International)

Regarding Scripture and the monotheistic God, we are told:

Isaiah 44:6-Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.

However, as you (correctly) point out, the Bible also talks about there being many “gods!”

Contradiction?

Not at all.

The Bible teaches that there are many fallen angels and their half human offspring (demons) which are “gods” (Genesis 6:1-4; Psalm 82:1-5; 96:5 (LXX). How does this harmonize with statements that besides Yahweh, “there is no other” god?

As Heiser points out:

“Another misguided strategy is to argue that statements in the Old Testament that have God saying “there is none besides me” mean that no other elohim exist. This isn’t the case. These phrases do not contradict Psalm 82 or others that, for example, say Yahweh is above all elohim or is the “God of gods [ elohim ].” I’ve written a lot on this subject—it was a focus of my doctoral dissertation. 12 These “denial statements,” as they are called by scholars, do not assert that there are no other elohim . In fact, some of them are found in chapters where the reality of other elohim is affirmed. We’ve already seen that Deuteronomy 32:17 refers to elohim that Paul believed existed. Deuteronomy 32:8–9 also refers to the sons of God. Deuteronomy 4:19–20 is a parallel to that passage, and yet Deuteronomy 4:35 says there is no god besides Yahweh. Is Scripture filled with contradictions? No. These “denial statements” do not deny that other elohim exist. Rather, they deny that any elohim compares to Yahweh. They are statements of incomparability. This point is easily illustrated by noticing where else the same denial language shows up in the Bible. Isaiah 47:8 and Zephaniah 2:15 have, respectively, Babylon and Nineveh saying “there is none besides me.” Are we to believe that the point of the phrase is to declare that no other cities exist except Babylon or Nineveh? That would be absurd. The point of the statement is that Babylon and Nineveh considered themselves incomparable , as though no other city could measure up to them. This is precisely the point when these same phrases are used of other gods—they cannot measure up to Yahweh. The Bible does not contradict itself on this point. Those who want to argue that the other elohim do not exist are at odds with the supernatural worldview of the biblical writers.” (Michael S. Heiser, Unseen Realm: Recovering The Supernatural Worldview Of The Bible, 571-595 (Kindle Edition); Bellingham, WA; Lexham Press)

Isn’t it amazing how a simple study on basic logic can clear up so many alleged Bible contradictions? Indeed, one scholar who devoted his lifetime to studying alleged Bible contradictions came to this interesting conclusion.

“As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself—or else by objective archaeological information. The deductions that may be validly drawn from ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, or Akkadian documents all harmonize with the biblical record; and no properly trained evangelical scholar has anything to fear from the hostile arguments and challenges of humanistic rationalists or detractors of any and every persuasion. There is a good and sufficient answer in Scripture itself to refute every charge that has ever been leveled against it. But this is only to be expected from the kind of book the Bible asserts itself to be, the inscripturation of the infallible, inerrant Word of the Living God.” (Gleason L. Archer Jr., New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 15 (Kindle Edition); Grand Rapids, Michigan; Zondervan)

//Unfortuantely for you, I know the classical philosophical arguments for your imaginary friend don’t work only for your imaginary friend. And gee, you claim that your god has revealed itself through nature. Again, most, if not all other cults make the same claim and not one of you can show this baseless claim to be true. Show it’s true.//

I have yet to see how you have dealt with any of the arguments that I have presented. Indeed, I have shared testimony after testimony and evidence after evidence affirming the truthfulness of the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments. Your statements that the evidence of God is insufficient is palpably false. However, since you claim to be such an expert on these arguments, maybe you will consider the testimony of some other well-known people that have studied the matter carefully?

The following is from a famous (former) atheist scientist. I encourage you to carefully consider some of these sources.

“There are many Christians with master’s and doctoral degrees in a wide variety of scientific fields. There are many Christians who are Doctors and Dentists, scientists and philosophers.–More Detail For instance, the American Scientific Affiliation is an organization of about 1500 Scientists who are also Christians. Quote: “The American Scientific Affiliation, or ASA, was founded in 1941 as an international network of Christians in the sciences. As scientists, members of the ASA take part in humanity’s exploration of nature, its laws, and how it works. As Christians, ASAers want to know not just how the universe operates and came into being, but why it exists in the first place. Why are we here, and why seemingly alone among all creatures do humans possess the qualities required for scientific research—like curiosity, creativity, and a sense of purpose? When and how did we become this way, and what does that say about our relationship with God? Who are we, really? We in the American Scientific Affiliation believe that God is both the creator of our vast universe and is the source of our ability to pursue knowledge—also, that honest and open studies of both scripture and nature are mutually beneficial in developing a full understanding of human identity and our environment.” Source: (http:// network.asa3. org/? page = ASAAbout , accessed 16nov15)—Christians in Science is an organization of 850 + British scientists, philosophers, theologians, ministers, teachers, and science students, who are Christians. The Christian Medical and Dental Associations have about 17,000 members in the USA (doctors and dentists who are Christians).—The Christian Medical Fellowship is an organization (of Christians in medicine in the UK) with about 4000 UK doctors and 800 UK medical students as members.—The Christian Medical and Dental Society (CMDS) is an association of Christian Doctors and Dentists in Canada.—The Christian Medical Association of India is an association of Christian Doctors in India.—The Christian Medical and Dental Fellowship of Australia is an association of Christian Doctors and Dentists in Australia.—The Christian Legal Society (CLS) is an organization of Christian lawyers, judges, law professors, and law students.—The Association of Christians in the Mathematical Sciences is an organization of Christians who are professional mathematicians and computer scientists. Additional Detail The following provides a brief (obviously non-exhaustive) listing of Christians in the sciences. Most of these individuals have higher-education/ graduate-degrees in the sciences. Note: this information below (in this “Additional Detail” section) is excerpted/ adapted from Wikipedia under the creative commons ShareAlike license. Biomedical Sciences Eben Alexander (born 1953): American, Harvard-educated neurosurgeon best known for his book, “Proof of Heaven”, in which he describes his 2008 near death experience.[ 166] In a recent interview, Dr Alexander said: “It’s time for brain science, mind science, physics, cosmology, to move from kindergarten up into first grade and realize we will never truly understand consciousness with that simplistic materialist mindset.” Werner Arber (born 1929): Werner Arber is a Swiss microbiologist and geneticist. Along with American researchers Hamilton Smith and Daniel Nathans, Werner Arber shared the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of restriction endonucleases. In 2011, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Arber as President of the Pontifical Academy—the first Protestant to hold that position. Robert J Asher is a palaeontologist and lecturer at the University of Cambridge Department of Zoology and a curator at the University Museum of Zoology. His book ‘Evolution and Belief: Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist’ was published by Cambridge University Press in 2012. Dr Asher is also a former Curator of Mammals at the Berlin Natural History Museum and Frick Postdoctoral Fellow at the American Museum of Natural History. Robert T. Bakker (born 1945): Paleontologist who was a figure in the “dinosaur Renaissance” and known for the theory some dinosaurs were Warm-blooded. He is also a Pentecostal preacher who advocates theistic evolution and has written on religion. R. J. Berry (born 1934): He is a former president of both the Linnean Society of London and the Christians in Science group. He also wrote God and the Biologist: Personal Exploration of Science and Faith (Apollos 1996) ISBN 0-85111-446-6 He taught at University College London for over 20 years. Derek Burke (born 1930): British academic and molecular biologist. Formerly a vice-chancellor of the University of East Anglia, Professor Burke has been a specialist advisor to the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology since 1985. Ben Carson (born 1951): American neurosurgeon. He is credited with being the first surgeon to successfully separate conjoined twins joined at the head. Francis Collins (born 1950): He is the current director of the National Institutes of Health and former director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute. He has also written on religious matters in articles and the book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Darrel R. Falk (born 1946): Darrel Falk is an American biologist and the former president of the BioLogos Foundation. Charles Foster (born 1962): Charles Foster is a science writer on natural history, evolutionary biology, and theology. A Fellow of Green Templeton College, Oxford, the Royal Geographical Society, and the Linnean Society of London, Foster has advocated theistic evolution in his book, The Selfless Gene (2009). Keith R Fox, British Professor of Biochemistry at Southampton University. Has a PhD in Pharmacology from the University of Cambridge, UK. His research concerns the sequence specific recognition of DNA by small molecules, oligonucleotides and proteins, and the formation of unusual DNA structures. Formerly a chair of “Christians in Science” John Gurdon (born 1933): a British developmental biologist. In 2012, he and Shinya Yamanaka were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery that mature cells can be converted to stem cells. In an interview with EWTN.com on the subject of working with the Vatican in dialogue, he says “I’m not a Roman Catholic. I’m a Christian, of the Church of England… I’ve never seen the Vatican before, so that’s a new experience, and I’m grateful for it.” Brian Heap (born 1935): Biologist who was Master of St Edmund’s College, University of Cambridge and was a founding member of the International Society for Science and Religion. William B. Hurlbut: William Hurlbut is a physician and Consulting Professor at the Stanford Neuroscience Institute, Stanford University Medical Center. In addition to teaching at Stanford, Hurlbut served for eight years on the President’s Council on Bioethics and is nationally known for his advocacy of Altered Nuclear Transfer (ANT). He is a Christian of no denomination and did three years of post-doctoral study in theology and medical ethics at Stanford. Denis Lamoureux (born 1954): Denis Lamoureux is an evolutionary creationist and holds a professorial chair of science and religion at St. Joseph’s College at the University of Alberta, Canada—the first of its kind in Canada, and with Phillip E. Johnson, Lamoureux co-authored Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (1999). Lamoureux has also written Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution (2008). Noella Marcellino (born 1951): American Benedictine nun with a degree in microbiology. Her field of interests include fungi and the effects of decay and putrefaction. Alister McGrath (born 1953): Prolific Anglican theologian who has written on the relationship between science and theology in A Scientific Theology. McGrath holds two doctorates from the University of Oxford, a DPhil in Molecular Biophysics and a Doctor of Divinity in Theology. He has responded to the new atheists in several books, i.e. The Dawkins Delusion?. As of early 2014, McGrath will be the New Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at Oxford. Kenneth R. Miller (born 1948): Biology professor at Brown University who wrote Finding Darwin’s God. Simon C. Morris (born 1951): British paleontologist who made his reputation through study of the Burgess Shale fossils. He was the co-winner of a Charles Doolittle Walcott Medal and also won a Lyell Medal. He is active in the Faraday Institute for study of science and religion and is also noted on discussions concerning the idea of theistic evolution. William Newsome (born 1952): Bill Newsome is a neuroscientist at Stanford University. A member of the National Academy of Sciences, Newsome is the co-chair of the BRAIN Initiative, “a rapid planning effort for a ten-year assault on how the brain works.” Newsome is also a Christian and has written about his faith: “When I discuss religion with my fellow scientists… I realize I am an oddity—a serious Christian and a respected scientist.” Martin Nowak (born 1965): Evolutionary biologist and mathematician best known for evolutionary dynamics. He teaches at Harvard University and is also a member of the Board of Advisers of the Templeton Foundation. Ghillean Prance (born 1937): Noted botanist involved in the Eden Project. He is a former President of Christians in Science. Joan Roughgarden (born 1946): An evolutionary biologist who has taught at Stanford University since 1972. She wrote the book Evolution and Christian Faith: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist. Mary Higby Schweitzer: paleontologist at North Carolina State University who believes strongly in the synergy of the Christian faith and the truth of empirical science. Chemistry Gerhard Ertl (born 1936): He is a 2007 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry. He has said in an interview that “I believe in God. (…) I am a Christian and I try to live as a Christian (…) I read the Bible very often and I try to understand it.” Brian Kobilka (born 1955): He is an American Nobel Prize winner of Chemistry in 2012, and is professor in the departments of Molecular and Cellular Physiology at Stanford University School of Medicine. Kobilka attends the Catholic Community at Stanford, California. He also received the Mendel Medal from Villanova University, which it says “honors outstanding pioneering scientists who have demonstrated, by their lives and their standing before the world as scientists, that there is no intrinsic conflict between science and religion.” Henry F. Schaefer, III (born 1944): He wrote Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence? ISBN 0-9742975-0-X and is a signatory of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. He was awarded the American Chemical Society Award in Pure Chemistry in 1979. James Tour (born 1959): He is Chao Professor of Chemistry at Rice University, Texas, where he also holds faculty appointments in computer science and materials; recognized as one of the world’s leading nano-engineers. Gained his Ph.D. in synthetic organic and organometallic chemistry from Purdue University, and postdoctoral training in synthetic organic chemistry at the University of Wisconsin and Stanford University. An Evangelical Christian, Tour has written: “I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.” Physics and Astronomy Stephen Barr (born 1953): Physicist who worked at Brookhaven National Laboratory and contributed papers to Physical Review as well as Physics Today. He also is a Catholic who writes for First Things and wrote Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. He teaches at the University of Delaware. John D. Barrow (born 1952): English cosmologist who did notable writing on the implications of the Anthropic principle. He is a United Reformed Church member and Christian deist. He won the Templeton Prize in 2006. He once held the position of Gresham Professor of Astronomy. Gerald B. Cleaver (born ????): Professor in the Department of Physics at Baylor University and head of the Early Universe Cosmology and Strings (EUCOS) division of Baylor’s Center for Astrophysics, Space Physics & Engineering Research (CASPER). His research specialty is string phenomenology and string model building. He is linked to BioLogos and among his lectures are ““ Faith and the New Cosmology.” Guy Consolmagno (born 1952): American Jesuit astronomer who works at the Vatican Observatory. George Coyne (born 1933): Jesuit astronomer and former director of the Vatican Observatory. Manuel García Doncel, born in 1930, Spanish Jesuit physicist, formerly Professor of Physics at Universidad de Barcelona. George Francis Rayner Ellis (born 1939): Professor of Complex Systems in the Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. He co-authored The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time with University of Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking, published in 1973, and is considered one of the world’s leading theorists in cosmology. He is an active Quaker and in 2004 he won the Templeton Prize. Pamela L. Gay (born 1973): An American astronomer, educator and writer, best known for her work in astronomical podcasting. Doctor Gay received her PhD from the University of Texas, Austin, in 2002.[ 211] Her position as both a skeptic and Christian has been noted upon. Karl W. Giberson (born 1957): Canadian physicist and evangelical, formerly a physics professor at Eastern Nazarene College in Massachusetts, Dr Giberson is a prolific author specializing in the creation-evolution debate and who formerly served as vice president of the BioLogos Foundation.[ 213] He has published several books on the relationship between science and religion, such as The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions and Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution. Owen Gingerich (born 1930): Mennonite astronomer who went to Goshen College and Harvard. Mr. Gingerich has written about people of faith in science history. J. Richard Gott (born 1947): Gott is a professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University. He is known for developing and advocating two cosmological theories with the flavor of science fiction: Time travel and the Doomsday argument. When asked of his religious views in relation to his science, Gott responded that “I’m a Presbyterian. I believe in God; I always thought that was the humble position to take. I like what Einstein said: “God is subtle but not malicious.” I think if you want to know how the universe started, that’s a legitimate question for physics. But if you want to know why it’s here, then you may have to know—to borrow Stephen Hawking’s phrase—the mind of God.” Robert Griffiths (born 1937): A noted American physicist at Carnegie Mellon University. He has written on matters of science and religion. John Hartnett (born 1952): Australian Young Earth Creationist who has a PhD and whose research interests include ultra low-noise radar and ultra high stability cryogenic microwave oscillators. Michał Heller (born 1936): He is a Catholic priest, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Theology, a founding member of the International Society for Science and Religion. He also is a mathematical physicist who has written articles on relativistic physics and Noncommutative geometry. His cross-disciplinary book Creative Tension: Essays on Science and Religion came out in 2003. For this work he won a Templeton Prize. Antony Hewish (born 1924): Antony Hewish is a British Radio Astronomer who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1974 (together with Martin Ryle) for his work on the development of radio aperture synthesis and its role in the discovery of pulsars. He was also awarded the Eddington Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1969. Hewish is a Christian. Hewish also wrote in his introduction to John Polkinghorne’s 2009 Questions of Truth, “The ghostly presence of virtual particles defies rational common sense and is non-intuitive for those unacquainted with physics. Religious belief in God, and Christian belief … may seem strange to common-sense thinking. But when the most elementary physical things behave in this way, we should be prepared to accept that the deepest aspects of our existence go beyond our common-sense understanding.” Colin Humphreys (born 1941): He is a British physicist. He is the former Goldsmiths’ Professor of Materials Science and a current Director of Research at Cambridge University, Professor of Experimental Physics at the Royal Institution in London and a Fellow of Selwyn College, Cambridge. Humphreys also “studies the Bible when not pursuing his day-job as a materials scientist.” Christopher Isham (born 1944): Theoretical physicist who developed HPO formalism. He teaches at Imperial College London. In addition to being a physicist, he is a philosopher and theologian. Ard Louis: A reader in Theoretical Physics at the University of Oxford. Prior to his post at Oxford he taught Theoretical Chemistry at Cambridge University where he was also director of studies in Natural Sciences at Hughes Hall. He has written for The BioLogos Forum. Juan Maldacena (born 1968): Argentine theoretical physicist and string theorist, best known for the most reliable realization of the holographic principle-the AdS/ CFT correspondence. Stephen Meyers (1958–): Physicist and earth science. Meyers wrote Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt. Worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991. Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute and Vice President and Senior Fellow at the DI. Don Page: Canadian theoretical physicist and practicing Evangelical Christian, Dr. Page is known for having published several journal articles with Stephen Hawking. William Daniel Phillips (born 1948): 1997 Nobel laureate in Physics (1997) who is a founding member of The International Society for Science and Religion. Andrew Pinsent (born 1966): Fr. Andrew Pinsent, a Catholic priest, is the Research Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University. He is also a particle physicist, whose previous work contributed to the DELPHI experiment at CERN. John Polkinghorne (born 1930): British particle physicist and Anglican priest who wrote Science and the Trinity (2004) ISBN 0-300-10445-6. Winner of the 2002 Templeton Prize. Joel Primack (born 1945): An American astrophysicist. A University of California, Santa Cruz, professor, he co-developed the cold dark matter theory that seeks to explain the formation and structure of the universe. Primack has written, “In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we’re now able to tell a coherent story” of how the universe began. This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God.” Russell Stannard (born 1931): British particle physicist who has written several books on the relationship between religion and science, such as Science and the Renewal of Belief, Grounds for Reasonable Belief and Doing Away With God?. Walter Thirring (born 1927): Austrian physicist after whom the Thirring model in quantum field theory is named. He is the son of the physicist Hans Thirring, co-discoverer of the Lense-Thirring frame dragging effect in general relativity. He also wrote Cosmic Impressions: Traces of God in the Laws of Nature. Frank J. Tipler (born 1947): Frank Tipler is a mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University. Tipler has authored books and papers on the Omega Point, which he claims is a mechanism for the resurrection of the dead. His theological and scientific theorizing are not without controversy, but he has some supporters; for instance, Christian theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg has defended his theology, and physicist David Deutsch has incorporated Tipler’s idea of an Omega Point. Jennifer Wiseman: She is Chief of the Laboratory for Exoplanets and Stellar Astrophysics at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. An aerial of the Center is shown. In addition she is a co-discoverer of 114P/ Wiseman-Skiff. In religion is a Fellow of the American Scientific Affiliation and on June 16, 2010 became the new director for the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion. Antonino Zichichi (born 1929): Italian nuclear physicist and former President of the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare. He has worked with the Vatican on relations between the Church and Science. Engineering Fred Brooks (born 1931): is an American computer architect, software engineer, and computer scientist, best known for managing the development of IBM’s System/ 360 family of computers and the OS/ 360 software support package, then later writing candidly about the process in his seminal book The Mythical Man-Month. Brooks has received many awards, including the National Medal of Technology in 1985 and the Turing Award in 1999. Brooks is an evangelical Christian who is active with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and chaired the Executive Committee for the Central Carolina Billy Graham Crusade in 1973. Richard H. Bube (born 1927): He is an emeritus professor of the material sciences at Stanford University. He is a member of the American Scientific Affiliation. Donald Knuth (born 1938): (Lutheran) The Art of Computer Programming and 3: 16 Bible Texts Illuminated (1991), ISBN 0-89579-252-4. Oghogho Ikponmwosa (born 1977): He obtained a Ph.D degree in Electronic and telecommunications from the University of Benin, Benin City, Edo State Nigeria and is presently a Lecturer in the department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Landmark University Omu-Aran, Kwara State, Nigeria. He developed empirical models able to predict the Transmission control protocol (TCP) throughput and Round trip time in IEEE 802.11b WLAN Systems based on the observed signal to noise ratio (SNR) in various environments. He is a member of the Nigerian Society of Engineers and a Registered Engineer with the Council for the Regulation of Engineering in Nigeria (COREN). Others Freeman Dyson (born 1923): He has won the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal, and the Lewis Thomas Prize. He also ranked 25th in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll. He has won the Templeton Prize and delivered one of the Gifford Lectures. He is famous for his work in quantum electrodynamics. John T. Houghton (born 1931): He is the co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and won a gold medal from the Royal Astronomical Society. He’s also former Vice President of Christians in Science. John Suppe (born 1943): He is a Professor of Geology at National Taiwan University, Geosciences Emeritus at Princeton University. He has written articles like “Thoughts on the Epistemology of Christianity in Light of Science.” Eric Priest (born 1943): An authority on Solar Magnetohydrodynamics who won the George Ellery Hale Prize among others. He has spoken on Christianity and Science at the University of St Andrews and is a member of the Faraday Institute. He is also interested in prayer, meditation, and Christian psychology. Robert J. Wicks (born 1946): Robert Wicks is a clinical psychologist who has written on the intersections of spirituality and psychology. Wicks for more than 30 years has been teaching at universities and professional schools of psychology, medicine, nursing, theology, and social work, currently at Loyola University Maryland. In 1996, he was a recipient of The Holy Cross Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, the highest medal that can be awarded to the laity by the Papacy for distinguished service to the Roman Catholic Church. Mike Hulme (born 1960): Mike Hulme is a professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), and is the author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change. He has said of his Christian faith, “I believe because I have not discovered a better explanation of beauty, truth and love than that they emerge in a world created-willed into being-by a God who personifies beauty, truth and love.” Michael Reiss (born 1960): Michael Reiss is a British bioethicist, science educator, and an Anglican priest. He was Director of Education at the Royal Society from 2006 to 2008. Reiss is Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education, University of London, where he is Pro-Director of Research and Development. Rosalind Picard (born 1962): Rosalind Picard is a Professor of Media Arts and Sciences at MIT, director and also the founder of the Affective Computing Research Group at the MIT Media Lab, co-director of the Things That Think Consortium, and chief scientist and co-founder of Affectiva. Picard was raised an atheist, but converted to Christianity as a young adult. John Lennox (born 1945): Mathematician, philosopher of science and pastoral adviser. His works include the mathematical The Theory of Infinite Soluble Groups and the religion-oriented God’s Undertaker–Has Science buried God? He has also debated religion with Richard Dawkins. He teaches at Oxford, so an old map of it is pictured. Justin L. Barrett (born 1971): Director of the Thrive Center for Human Development and Professor of Psychology at Fuller Graduate School of Psychology after being a researcher at Oxford, Barrett is a cognitive scientist specializing in the cognitive science of religion. He has published “Cognitive Science, Religion, and Theology” (Templeton Press, 2011). Barrett has been described by the New York Times as ‘an observant Christian who believes in “an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly good God who brought the universe into being,” as he wrote in an e-mail message. “I believe that the purpose for people is to love God and love each other.”’ Denis Alexander (born 1945): Director of the Faraday Institute and author of Rebuilding the Matrix–Science and Faith in the 21st Century. He also supervises a research group in cancer and immunology at the Babraham Institute. Raymond Vahan Damadian (1936-) medical practitioner and inventor who created the MRI (Magnetic Resonance Scanning Machine). There was a controversy on why he did not receive the 2003 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, given that he had came up with the idea and worked on the development of the MRI.—END of Section (excerpt)” (John M. Kinson, God & Atheist Objections: An ex-Atheist Scientist responds to 130+ Atheist Objections (God & Science Book 11), 1544-1853 (Kindle Edition))

Are these people simply mindless followers of “the cult,” Vel?

//it’s nothing new to have an ignorant Christian who doesn’t know what other Christians have claimed.//

Interesting, considering the testimony that I have shared (both here and previously). There are many former atheists who are now Christians, because they took the time to investigate the evidence.

//Christians don’t honor any law of rationality. You all repeatedly lie that only your version is the right one and have no evidence at all.//

I stand by the case that I have made.

//The cosmological argument is the first cause argument. The first cause doesn’t need to be omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent, eternal, etc at all. It can just be a dumb force. Show that all of your god’s supposed attributes are needed. Surely you can, right?//

Actually, I presented several logical reasons why the first Cause must be omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent, eternal, etc. all. The attributes of God flow logically from His eternal nature. I will have more for you soon on that.

//As we already know, something can come from nothing, thus your false claims about “intuition” already fail.//

So, you are going to argue that there are things which may “come from” nothing?

Name one.

You can’t.

But even if you COULD name one, could you then show an example of how an ENTIRE UNIVERSE CAME INTO EXISTENCE FROM NOTHING?

The simple fact is, the idea of “something coming from nothing” is absurd beyond degree. It is a symbol of desperation that you are clinging to such a fantasy.

William Lane Craig and Paul Copan powerfully illustrate:

“1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you’ve got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise 1, you’ve got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause. 2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing. Think about it: why don’t bicycles and Beethoven and root beer just pop into being from nothing? Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can’t be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn’t have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there isn’t anything to be constrained! 3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1. Premise 1 is constantly verified and never falsified. It’s hard to understand how any atheist committed to modern science could deny that premise 1 is more plausibly true than false in light of the evidence.” (William Lane Craig & Paul Copan, Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics, 1073-1078 (Kindle Edition): Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group)

To others who are reading this exchange, please notice how Christianity is honoring the laws of thought and of science, and how atheism readily and unashamedly ignores them and tosses them out. The Law of Causality states that every effect must have a sufficient antecedent cause. The universe began to exist (as even Vel is now acknowledging since he is trying to claim that it sprang into existence from nothingness). Christianity honors this by pointing out the rationality that the Eternal Being (God) created the universe. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe could not have created itself, while the Second Law clearly shows us that the universe did INDEED have a beginning (more on that soon). However, atheism has to toss out the laws of thought and science, and then the attack is made that Christians are the ones who are irrational.

In all fairness, who is being irrational?

Thank you Vel, for helping us see this important truth.

//The fact that this universe began is also no evience your god is needed. UInsurprisngly, Jastrow simply lies.//

Really?

I would like to see your evidence that Jastrow is lying.

//Thermodyamics fails since we have no idea if the universe is a closed system. Those laws only work in closed systems. The galaxies only show that space expands, no god needed, and the stars do have lifespans, again, no evidence a god is needed for that either. Again, a beginning shows no evidence for your imaginary friend. Blanchard repeats the same lies and ignorance. Nope, nothing shows that “something” had to create the universe. That’s a lie on a theist’s part. It doesn’t have to be supernatural at all. I do love when people reference the lies of D’Souza. Funny how he repeats the same lies as your other two theists. No need for an eternal cause either. Something could exist and cease, still having been the force that caused the universe. No need for beings at all. Your ignorant nonsense leads to the problems you need to fix by pretending your god exists.//

Let’s start with some more about the origin of the universe. Perhaps you would like to consider the following testimony and tell us how all these scientists are simply ignorant (a word you constantly use to describe Christians)?

“In addition to quantum mechanics, scientists of the 20th century made at least one other significant discovery that strengthened belief in the supernatural—the “Big Bang” theory. Up until then, the theory that the universe had an actual “beginning” had not been popular with scientists. 132 For many years, physicists such as Fred Hoyle found the idea of a beginning to be far too much like the Biblical account of creation in Genesis, and argued instead for a “steady state” universe—one that had no beginning. 133 The Big Bang was first hypothesized by Belgian priest and astronomer Georges Lemaitre in 1927, but decades would pass before any “proof” could be found to support it. In 1948, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman predicted that if the Big Bang had actually occurred there should be detectable background radiation. In the 1960’ s, American scientists Arno Penzias and George W. Wilson detected this background radiation. Now widely accepted, the Big Bang Theory says that the entire universe—matter and energy—unexplainably burst forth from a single infinitesimally small point in space about 14 billion years ago. This event marked the beginning of time. Eventually the laws of physics, such as gravity, caused particles of matter to form into planets, stars, and galaxies. Scientists who believed in creation and the Creator found their position greatly strengthened as a result of the Big Bang Theory’s acceptance. 134 Evidence of the Big Bang’s background radiation caused physicist George Smoot to comment, “If you’re religious, it’s like seeing God.” 135 The big bang creation of the universe is good news for God. It means there was a creation. Gerald Schroeder136 With respect to the Big Bang, astronomers [had previously] resisted the notion that the universe had a beginning, a singularity that smacks all too much in their philosophy of a miraculous event. Many were delighted, however by the congruence between the words of Genesis 1, “Let there be light!” and a hypothesized Big Bang in which the universe began with a mighty burst of energetic photons. Owen Gingerich137 First of all, we have this very solid conclusion that the universe had an origin, the Big Bang. Fifteen billion years ago, the universe began with an unimaginably bright flash of energy from an infinitesimally small point. That implies that before that, there was nothing. I can’t imagine how nature, in this case the universe, could have created itself. And the very fact that the universe had a beginning implies that someone was able to begin it. And it seems to me that had to be outside of nature. And that sounds like God. Francis Collins138 There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing. George Smoot139 God created the universe out of nothing in an act which also brought time into existence. Recent discoveries, such as observations supporting the Big Bang and similar astronomical phenomena, are wholly compatible with this view. Henry Margenau140 Current research in astrophysics seems to indicate that the ultimate origin of the universe may be not only unknown but unknowable. That is, if we assume the Big Bang which present evidence strongly supports, there is no real way to find out what came before the Big Bang. It is surely right to pursue as far as possible the scientific understanding of the origins of the universe, but it is probably wrong to think that we have final answers and that there are no further surprises to come. From a religious point of view, we assume that God did it and hope to find out something about how he did it. Arthur Schawlow141 Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not. Albert Einstein142 The Big Bang seems to point strongly toward a Creator, since .. the question of what came before is left hanging in the air. Francis Collins143 Albert Einstein Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. All the details differ, but the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same, the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy. Robert Jastrow144 Certainly there was something that set it off. Certainly, if you’re religious, I can’t think of a better theory [the Big Bang] of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis. Robert Wilson145 In my mind a conflict between believing in God and believing in the Big Bang theory of the Universe never existed. In fact, just the opposite has occurred. The incredible beauty, wonder, and simplicity of the Universe have helped me to strengthen my belief in God and seek deeper knowledge about this relationship. I believe the Universe evolved by the laws of physics, but I also believe that it was God who originated these laws. Giovanni Fazio146 [God] solves some deeply troubling questions about what came before the Big Bang and why the universe seems to be tuned for us to be here. Francis Collins147 I do not understand how the scientific approach alone, as separated from a religious approach, can explain an origin of all things. It is true that physicists hope to look behind the “Big Bang” and possibly to explain the origin of our universe as, for example, a type of fluctuation. But then, of what is it a fluctuation and how did this in turn begin to exist? In my view, the question of origin seems always left unanswered if we explore from a scientific view alone. Thus, I believe there is a need for some religious or metaphysical explanation if we are to have one. Charles H. Townes148 Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say “supernatural”) plan. Thus the observations of modern science seem to lead to the same conclusions as centuries-old intuition. At the same time, most of our modern scientific intuition seems to be more comfortable with the world as described by the science of yesterday. Arno Penzias149 The big bang, the most cataclysmic event we can imagine, on closer inspection appears finely orchestrated. George Smoot150 The God having the creative force to make the entire observable universe in a dense dot of pure energy is incomprehensible. Owen Gingerich151 There remains the question of how the Big Bang was initiated, but it seems unlikely that science will be able to elucidate this…. the exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine. Vera Kistiakowsky152 The tendency of modern physics is to resolve the whole material universe into waves, and nothing but waves…. These concepts reduce the whole universe to a world of light, potential or existent, so that the whole story of its creation can be told with perfect accuracy and completeness in the six words: ‘God said, Let there be light’. Sir James Jeans153 As to the first cause of the universe, in the context of expansion, this is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him. [God] Edward Milne154 Science raises questions that it can never answer. Why did the big bang eventually lead to conscious beings who question the purpose of life and the existence of the universe? This is where religion is necessary. Antony Hewish155”. (Gordon Leidner, Of God and Dice: Quotes from Eminent Scientists Supporting a Creator, 39-46 (Kindle Edition):

Since you can’t seem to make up your mind regarding whether or not the universe had a beginning (and especially as relates to the laws of thermodynamics), perhaps the testimony of a (former) atheist who also studied this matter thoroughly will be of interest to you.

“As for Michel Onfray, he accuses Christians of being opposed to science, mentioning “the eternity of the universe” in a list of scientific theses rejected by believers: “Is there anything to be said for scientific belief in the eternity of the universe? In multiple universes? (Both Epicurean theses, incidentally . . .) Absolutely not! God created the universe from nothing. Before nothing, there was . . . nothing.”[ 8] I’m not sure who Onfray is thinking of when he tells us that scientists believe in the eternity of the universe because modern science teaches exactly the opposite. The vast majority of scientific evidence points to a beginning of the universe. The standard model is the Big Bang theory, which places the absolute beginning of space and time around 13.7 billion years ago.[ 9] Albert Jacquard explains the consequences of this model: Since the Big Bang has been defined as both the beginning of space and of the objects contained therein, it is also of necessity the beginning of time, which only began to tick away from that moment on. There was therefore no “before.”[ 10] There are many good reasons besides this one to affirm a beginning. Some are scientific (the expansion of the universe, the cosmic microwave background, the second law of thermodynamics), and others are philosophical (the impossibility of having an actually infinite set of moments in the past or the impossibility of crossing over an infinite past to arrive at today). These reasons are convincing, but for a complete defense, I invite you to take a more in-depth look at the philosophical and scientific literature that deals with each of them. For our purposes here, I’ll simply say that the beginning of the universe is at least the standard scientific model, and that when Michel Onfray affirms “the eternity of the universe,” he is the one turning his back on modern science while accusing Christians of living in the Dark Ages. There are also some atheist objections based on a lack of understanding of the argument. Bertrand Russell quips, “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.”[ 11] This proves a lack of understanding of the first premise of the argument. The believer does not claim that everything must have a cause but only “that which begins to exist.” Since God exists outside of time, he does not have a beginning and, hence, he has no need of a cause. Why couldn’t that be the case with the universe? Because it has a beginning! Prosper Alfaric misrepresents the first premise when he says that “all beings, and all movement in general, comes from another and that one from another still.”[ 12] But that is not what the argument says. All beings which begin to exist must “come from another.” These critics are not interacting with the theist’s true argument; they are missing the mark. Jean Meslier asks how God could have caused the universe without preceding it in time: “If time was something that could be created and even if it were created, as our ‘God-lovers’ would have us believe, it certainly could only have been created by a being that preceded it, because if this being did not precede it, how could he have created it?”[ 13] The answer is simple: God precedes the universe logically but not temporally. There is no reason to think it was impossible for God, who exists outside of time, to freely create the universe before time existed. If it seems strange to the atheist that the universe was created without a temporal cause, the atheist scenario is stranger still because there is no cause, either inside or outside of time. So the kalam cosmological argument holds up quite well before its critics, and it supports the existence of a God who created the universe.”