Monday, February 28, 2011

FacePalm of the Day #61 - Debunking Christianity: William Lane Craig on Middle Knowledge and Hell

I'm always amazed when atheists brings up this subject and attempt to address Middle Knowledge and God's Sovereignty juxtaposed with human free will. It amazes me because it always turns into a trainwreck. This is an important issue but it does not really concern unbelievers because if either William Lane Craig is right about Middle Knowledge or Christians who disagree with him are right unbelievers are still lost. Therefore I don't see why atheists like Loftus even bring it up. But while I am here anyway I want to explain that I don't accept Dr. Craig's theology on this point and I also want to point out why it doesn't do people like Loftus any good commenting on a debate they don't understand. Loftus' original comments will be in bold.

When it comes to foreknowing our future, Craig argues that God has Middle Knowledge such that he knows “what every possible creature would do under any possible circumstances,” “prior to any determination of the divine will.”[1] So despite his protestations to the contrary isn’t it obvious that if Craig’s God has this kind of foreknowledge he could simply foreknow who would not accept his offered salvation before they were even created, and then never create them in the first place? If he did that “hotel hell” would never have even one occupant. Why not?

This is one of the problems I have with Craig's understanding of God's foreknowledge. It presupposes that God's only purpose in creating humanity is filling heaven with the most number of people possible without violating anyone's free will. I don't see that in the Bible at all. By our own will, we all deserve hell and its in God turning our hearts and freeing our minds from being enslaved to sin that we are saved. The human will is not all powerful - God is. He alone deserves all glory and I see nothing in scripture that leads me down the road to thinking that God is more concerned with what I want or think than He is in fulfilling His purposes. All of this considered - God creates everyone because He has a purpose in that although knowing that some people are going to end up in Hell. I agree with the definition of Middle Knowledge Loftus gives and that is why I reject it.

In question #202 at Reasonable Faith Dr. Craig tries to answer this type of problem:

Question 202:
Dr. Craig,

"How can God be considered Wholly Good, when he knowingly created the angels, the universe, and humanity, knowing that hell would be a requirement for such a world, and also knowing that a majority of people would be condemned to it for all eternity?" I believe this objection is valid because even if someone is condemned to hell as a result of their own free will, the fact is that God using his middle knowledge already knew that person would freely choose to go against God, and thus would be condemned to hell but created the person/world/hell anyway. The fate is so terrible, and the number of people who would be condemned is so high, that in my view, the only moral choice would be to either not create the universe/humanity, or not to create humanity with Free Will. --John
Dr. Craig responds:

Yours is a thoughtful and difficult question, John….But let’s press harder. Suppose the worst case scenario. What would the objection, if fully successful, require you to give up? The existence of God? The resurrection of Jesus? Hardly! It would seem to require you to give up biblical inerrancy, at least with respect to the reality of hell. That would be jarring, but it’s no reason to commit apostasy!

But maybe it wouldn’t even require that much. As you say, you could always adopt annihilationism, as some evangelical Christians have done. That would seem to solve your problem.

But suppose you think annihilationism is not the correct interpretation of the New Testament with respect to hell. What then? Well, notice that the objection presupposes the doctrine of middle knowledge. For it assumes that logically prior to God’s creative decree, He knew what any person would freely do in response to His grace. If He lacks such knowledge, then the objection can’t even get off the ground. And it hardly needs to be said that middle knowledge is a hotly debated doctrine that is not incumbent upon the biblically faithful Christian. So you can completely avoid the objection just by denying middle knowledge. I hope you’re beginning to breathe easier.I've
What Bill is doing here is simply saying that in order to keep one's faith in the midst of an "overwhelming defeater" then all that believers have to do is reinvent what they believe. Just jettison this or that doctrine and the cognitive dissonance will be gone. But by all means keep believing. This is exactly why Christianity has survived down through the centuries. Believers just reinvent it in every generation. Then the reinvented faith becomes the new orthodoxy. So Bill is giving this guy named John permission to do so. Forget truth at that point. Just do a little dance. Gerrymander away the problem. Do it as often as you need to in order to believe.

How do we know for sure that more people will end up in hell than in heaven? People are saved by putting their faith in how much of the salvation plan they have had revealed to them. Today we have more of the pieces than Abraham or anyone in the Old Testament had. And Isaiah had more of the larger picture than Abraham did. We are accountable for accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior because we know. They will be with us in Heaven because they believed that God would make atonement for them. They didn't know the name of the Messiah, only the One was to come. What will the Canaanite who lived while Israel was enslaved in Egypt be responsible for believing and accepting (or anyone for that matter)? Whatever God holds them accountable for. The Bible is clear. And as for the people who didn't have the Bible they have creation and their consciousness. God would be in his rights if he only held some people accountable for those. That is not you or me today because we do have the Bible and we have had Jesus revealed to us. We must keep in mind that God would have been within his rights to save no one. He was within his rights to have chosen to annihilate everyone or send everyone who ever exists to hell. It was up to Him. He owes us nothing. We owe Him.

I've never heard William Lane Craig endorse annihilationism but I have never heard him condemn the idea as unbiblical. And it is grossly unbiblical. Loftus is indeed correct that some people are willing to water-down scripture and "re-invent" doctrine every generation. I'm not. It truly does come down to living a holy life or going to hell. Your soul/mind will survive your death and you will either find yourself with God forever or forever separated from God. There is no middle ground. It doesn't take changing the message to believe. You can believe what the Bible says. It hasn't changed.


That being said he does attempt to answer John's question:
But suppose you think, as I do, that God has middle knowledge. Here my response, as you note, is that those who would freely reject God’s love and forgiveness and His every effort to save them and so damn themselves forever, against His will, should not be allowed to have a veto power over God’s creating a world in which multitudes of other people freely accept His grace and are saved. Why should the blessedness and joy of those who would be saved be prevented by what evil and intransigent people would freely do? Why should they be allowed to prevent an incommensurable good?

Your response is that unbelievers “did not ask to be created, and had they been presented with the stark choice of Non-Existence and Eternal Conscious Torture they would undoubtedly choose Non-Existence.” This response seems to miss the thrust of my answer. Of course, the damned would prefer not to have been created! Obviously! But my question is why such persons’ freely rejecting God should be allowed to prevent the blessedness and joy of those who would freely accept God’s salvation? These people shouldn’t be privileged over those who would love and want God.
There's more to his answer of course, it's just that I cannot chase all of his claims down the apologist's rabbit hole right now. Let it suffice to say that he's has a very selfish perspective here. Christians are themselves quite selfish when it comes to heaven. All they care about is that they get in. It doesn't matter much if others don't. While they might try evangelizing a few times in their lives the only thing that matters is that they get into heaven regardless of whether or not their family, friends and co-workers do.

John Loftus still seems to think that God should care what we think. It's true that many people would rather choose non-existence rather than eternal torture or serving and loving God. So What? We didn't get a vote. He is the potter. We are his clay. Don't like it? Tough. People who love God want what God wants. We want more than to just for us to make it in. We know we don't deserve it and want as many people as possible to turn from their sin and be with God because it only then that a human being is truly free. That is why we must tell everyone and leave it to God as to how and when they respond.

It's not whether non-believers would prefer non-existence to an eternal suffering in hell. It's that agape loving Christians should prefer non-existence rather than knowing their family, friends and co-workers will end up in an eternal hell.

John Loftus does not really know what Agape means. It is the kind of Love that gives what is needed even if it's not wanted or deserved. It does not mean that you get everything you want on your own terms. God wants what is best for us, yes. It's stupid to think that you know what that is better than He does. It's also stupid to think that you can get away with ignoring Him when atoms obeys His Commands. We deserve hell and if you go to Heaven its because of Grace and Mercy through faith that God gives you/

Caring Christians themselves should all rise up as one and demand an answer for why God created this world at all knowing so many people would end up in hell. If I were a Christian I would protest God for creating this world even if I ended up in heaven. I would rather that God never created anything at all than for him to create this world, if my family, friends and co-workers were to wind up in hell along with billions of other people. If I were a selfless agape loving Christian I would gladly have preferred non-existence than an existence in heaven for me knowing the eternal sufferings of so many others in hell. That's selfless agape love. Christians do not have it and neither does their God if he created this world on the backs of the screams of billions of people in an eternal hell.

Christians should know that clay doesn't talk back to the potter. I'm grateful that God would allow me to go to Heaven. It's not like those who end up in hell wanted to be saved and God said "No." Loves requires responsibility. You can't just live any kind of way on your own terms and then cry foul when God punishes you for doing what you wanted to do. People like Loftus have reality backward. We are supposed to serve God. God does not serve us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] William Lane Craig, “Middle Knowledge, A Calvinist-Arminian Rapprochement,” in The Grace of God, The Will of Man, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1989), pp:141-164.


Debunking Christianity: William Lane Craig on Middle Knowledge and Hell
Enhanced by Zemanta

My Common Sense is Tingling - Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, One More Time

John Loftus has again posted something that makes me wonder if he really believes what he's write and says:

In my world miracles like virgin births and resurrections do not happen. What world do you live in? If they do not happen now then they did not happen in the ancient past either. And that's how historians must view the evidence. Yesterday's evidence has lost all of its power to convince. We do not believe in miracle claims in today's world and we live in this world. So how much more so is it the case that we cannot believe they took place in the ancient past! We can interview people in today's world and we still don't believe they happened. How much more so is this the case in the ancient past where we cannot interview the people involved! The overwhelming numbers of Jews in the days of Jesus did not believe he resurrected even though they believed in a miracle working God named Yahweh and the Old Testament. How much more so then is it the case in our world that we cannot believe when miracles are supposed to establish that Yahweh did a particular miracle in the past! Again, if they do not happen in our day then they did not happen in the past either. What world are YOU living in?


When people say something like this, I wonder if they ever look past their own nose. I think that classifying everything you don't understand as a miracle is overkill and not realistic but it is just as stupid as saying miracles never happen. I know people who have been healed of cancer. I know people who have miraculously spared death and seen the hand of God intervene in my life and the lives of others. Just because John Loftus has not consciously experienced the hand of God intervening is his life and has been blind to God's intervention in the world around him - partly because he thinks God should behave and act in particular ways - does not mean that God does not exist or worse is indifferent to the sufferings and needs of people today. That simply isn't true. It's offensive to suggest that if you think that God still intervenes today (or ever) that one is not living in reality. This isn't true either. Loftus talks as if he can prove that God does not act today and therefore assume that he never has and then prove that he does not exist at all. This is totally silly and rests on presupposition he can't prove in the slightest.

Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, One More Time
Enhanced by Zemanta

A.J. Ayer, a prominent skeptic's beliefs challenged by NDE

This last weekend I posted a lecture by Gary Habermas I got from Brian Auten. Dr Habermas offered peer-reviewed evidence for Near-Death Experiences. One account he talked about was the case of atheist philosopher Alfred Jules Ayer. I was able to find other sources validating the information Habermas gave about Ayer. Again I can find no evidence that says he became a Christian but something happened to him that changed his whole life. He reportedly said:


I saw a Divine Being. I'm afraid I'm going to have to revise all my various books and opinions.
I suggest reading the following list of links to learn more about the man and his NDE




A.J. Ayer, a prominent skeptic's beliefs challenged by NDE

“Did atheist philosopher see God when he ‘died’?” by William Cash

Wikiquote - Alfred Jules Ayer


And here is the article written by Ayer himself about what he experienced when he died.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Apologist Interview: Craig Blomberg - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted his interview with Craig Blomberg (how does he find them??!) I'm not sure how he does it but it is certainly in keeping with the high-level and important resources he populates his blog with. Dr Craig Blomberg is an expert in Textual Criticism and the New Testament. Brian is really good at asking great questions and getting to the heart of who the person he is interviewing. The post includes links to further resources available from Dr. Blomberg.

Apologist Interview: Craig Blomberg - Apologetics 315
Enhanced by Zemanta

Reasons To Believe - Did Humans and Dinosaurs Live Simultaneously

Dr Hugh Ross addresses the question did Humans and Dinosaurs live simultaneously.

Did dinosaurs and humans live at the same time? (10:18)


Video Question and Answers | Reasons To Believe
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, February 27, 2011

This Week's MCTS Video...I Think There is Only One More to Come!

Here is the seventh podcast interview of James White.


Interview 7 | White and Barcellos from MCTS on Vimeo.


This Week's MCTS Video...I Think There is Only One More to Come!

Sunday Quote: Allan Sandage on Design - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten posted the following on his blog at Apologetics 315. I totally agree with Dr. Sandage.

"The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle - an architect for believers."

- Allan Sandage, "A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief"


Sunday Quote: Allan Sandage on Design - Apologetics 315
Enhanced by Zemanta

Answering Muslims: Trinity or Tawheed?

A debate on the Trinity between Abdullah Kunde and Samuel Green. Granville, NSW, Australia. 10th of December 2010.




Answering Muslims: Trinity or Tawheed?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Reasons To Believe - Does human genetic evidence support Noah's flood?

"The Deluge", by John Martin, 1834. ...Image via Wikipedia
Dr Fazale Rana gives an answer as to if there is any human genetic evidence for the Flood. It's an interesting answer.



Does human genetic evidence support Noah's flood? (4:08)




Video Question and Answers | Reasons To Believe
Enhanced by Zemanta

Near Death Experiences As Evidence for the Transcendance of the Human Mind

Recently the controversy of the human mind versus the human brain has become very important. The question: Is the human mind just an extension of the human brain or is the mind distinct and transcends death? The question has many implications. The issue is many atheists desire to define the mind as indistinguishable of the brain because then they can argue that there can't be any mind without a brain and no soul  - casting serious doubt on the existence of God. They desire to think of a human as being composed of nothing more than a physical body. They reject the Biblical descriptions of humans having having souls. They even try to say that there is no evidence to the contrary that supports that the mind transcends death and continues to exist or that the mind is not the same as the brain. They say that the fact that brain injury can cause changes in personality and behavior that the mind and the brain are the same thing. Is this true? Does it make sense?

What we have is a false parallel. The argument is designed to making you choose between the prospect that the mind and the brain are so tied together that they are the same thing or that they are so separate that the what happens to the brain doesn't affect the mind. The thing is that there is no reason to conclude that if  the mind is affected by what happens to the brain that the mind/soul do not live on after the physical body (brain) dies. There is no evidence that the relationship should be so. I have yet to read or hear anyone successfully argue why we should make that assumption. It seems that there is no reason why they both can't be true - that the mind is affected by what happens to the brain  and that the mind/soul survives physical death - brain death in other words.

A lot of people admit that if near-death experiences (NDE) are proof that the mind/soul survives death, then it's proof that the mind and the brain are not the same thing. This is why many atheists argue very hard against NDE's. They recognize that if accept the possibility that our minds survive the death of our bodies it puts their atheism in a precarious condition because we can't really know anything about what happens after we die using our own natural ways of observing the material world. Worse than that.  It means that all truth cannot be determined using the natural methods many of them have pinned their faith on. It means you have to truly consider if the Bible is true. You have to admit that it matters if the Bible is true or not.

Is there proof that NDEs are true experiences? I think they are  and not because I need them to be true to validate the Bible. I think that a good place to start looking at these issues is to look at the work of Gary Habermas. Here is an audio lecture on the subject of NDEs.

Dr. Gary Habermas gives a talk about data reported in peer-reviewed medical journals involving near-death experiences.

Listen to the talk at the following link: Near-Death Experiences: Evidence for an Afterlife? - Gary Habermas MP3 Audio

Also he has a FAQ section on NDEs on his website. Read it at http://www.garyhabermas.com/qa/qa_index.htm#nea
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Debunking Christianity: Scientists to Theologians: Put Up Or Shut Up!


John Loftus has posted the following thoughts and I thought it would be worth responding by annotating his brief comments with my own in bold.


Christian theists love to point out the limits of science, and it does have some.

Alright! We have a consensus!!!!

But to focus on them to the exclusion of the massive amount of information we have acquired from science is being extremely ungrateful for what it has achieved. To me that is one aspect of the denigration of science.

Agreed some fundamental Christians do so, but I think to claim that all theists exclude evidence because it does not support what they think is true is highly unfair and is not correct.

The limits of science are based in 1) the limits of human imagination, and 2) the limits of that which we can detect. That which is undetectable does not fall within the realm of science, although, with further advances in our scientific instruments we can detect things that were previously thought undetectable.

Interesting. Another consensus. The Bible says the same thing.

16 I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18 may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.
 20 Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.- Ephesians 3:16-21

The Bible is real clear. It states that to know reality we need to know God. Our limited and fallible imaginations are not an issue because God is greater than our imagination and we can have his power at work within us. We don't need to depend on our own abilities or solely on our own intellect. God levels he playing field.

If science does reach its limits in the future, there won't be any cause for theistic celebration because scientists may not know they have reached its limits, and because there are probably some things they might never know.

I agree with this statement too. Scary. The one thing I would add that theist (rational ones anyway) are not praying for the failure of science or scientists. Science is a worthy endeavor that God raises up people to do and even though atheist and agnostics don't see it, Science helps us understand God better because it is through the created reality God has chosen as one of the ways he has revealed Himself to us.

Why should that conclusion, if they reach it, be preferred to an evolving God concept in a sea of god-concepts without any means to settle which one is to be preferred as the best explanation of the same data? What is the theistic alternative method for squeezing the truth out of the universe? What is it? Until theists can propose a better method than science to learn about the universe, then they should just shut up!

And here is where John Loftus goes off the rails. The Bible does not present an "evolving god concept in a sea of god-concepts without any mean to settle which one to be preferred." True enough God has revealed Himself to us - in His own way and under His own terms. Only a moron would say that science is not a viable way of discovering truth in the universe. It's also equally stupid to think that science is the only way in discovering truth given the acknowledged limitations of science. Does theism propose a better method to learn about the universe and your place in it? Christianity gives you the best option: relationship with the creator. We didn't come with an exhaustive instruction manual. If you want to know the proper purpose and use of a thing, you ask the one who made it because the one who made it knows what the design specs are and what the purpose of the design was. Science is one of the things that God gave us an aid in that search but not as a replacement for knowing Him, reconciled through Jesus Christ. Notice that John Loftus and many atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins say: "I will not serve a God like that. Such a God could not reasonably exist." They say that while at the same time admitting that their reason is flawed and can't possibly be complete yet they refuse the help of God to correct it. It's like watching a man drowning but instead of clutching at the life preserver - the only flotation device available for rescue -he chucks it away because he wants a different preserver, preferring to clutch the anvil tied to chained around his neck that's dragging him down towards death to having the anvil's chain's broken. No one figures out the difference between the anvil and life preserver on their own. Some one has to point it out to us and some people who refuse to listen. It's not a perfect analogy but it's close. We must pray for them and thank God for the life preserver He gave us - Jesus.

Debunking Christianity: Scientists to Theologians: Put Up Or Shut Up!
Enhanced by Zemanta

My Common Sense is Tingling - Debunking Christianity: Can You Not See What It Takes to Believe? You Must Bash Science!

John Loftus has posted another mind bending affront to common sense...correction he quotes some mind bending affront to common sense and agrees to it.

Yep, that what Vic Reppert and gang must do, and Vic is supposedly an intellectual whom Christians say stands head over heels above me! lol Is this not completely and utterly ignorant? This is why I cannot believe. To do so you must be ignorant! I need not even respond since someone named Doctor Logic already did. See below:
This letter smacks of "scorched earth", postmodernist anti-intellectualism.

What disgusts me about the sort of rhetoric here is the suggestion that science doesn't advance, or that science is a form of pop cultural entertainment that doesn't deserve our trust.

99% of our knowledge about the world comes from science. The most reliable knowledge we have is scientific. Did a modicum of trust get us to the Moon or eliminate smallpox?!

Science has vastly improved our lives. The Bible never taught us a damn thing.

Christian apologists are more than happy to throw science under the bus if it will save their religion by making scientific inquiry look as arbitrary as the spiritual prejudice that lies at the core of their worldview.

Oh, if only science could be reduced to mere recordkeeping and endless data gathering like in the good old days of the scholastics. Then, there would indeed be no conflict between science and religion. This is what Bob really meant when he said there was no conflict, but, Bob, data collecting isn't science! There is a real conflict between real science and religion.

Science is about control and the elimination of bias, so we can see the world as it really is. Religion is the opposite: it's about the maximization of bias and amplification of prejudiuce and preconception. Science and religion are mortal enemies.
I've read Dr. Victor Reppert's post I can find no "science bashing" in it. Atheists like John Loftus are so quick to label theists as people who hate science - as if there are no scientists who are also theists. Really, really, an affront to common sense. They also will cry foul. All I see that Reppert do in his post is describe the limits of science and why it's not a smart thing to put all of your eggs into its basket if you want to know what reality is. What is wrong with that? Loftus sounds like a religious person who just had his idol spit on. Loftus basically attempts to respond to Reppert's post by quoting a comment by "Dr. Logic". I think to anyone who read this thread should go and see the original post and comments. I think that Bob Prokop's comments bear reading.

"Dr. Logic",

I still fail to understand how you can employ that moniker with a straight face. Everything you wrote in your comment does nothing more than provide yet more evidence for my thesis. You obviously read the posting, but brought along with you your own prejudices and blinders, and saw only what you wanted (or perhaps expected) to see.

Of course science does not "deserve" our trust, any more than our government or my church does. We are dealing with human beings here, who have the same weaknesses and failings that I can so easily see in myself.

(Warning: I'm going to ramble a bit here, but I want to get a lot of points in with my morning coffee.)

As a professional analyst of the Soviet Union for some decades, I learned extensively about the history of scientific research in that country, to include the infamous Lysenko period, where no conclusions were allowed to be drawn in genetics that might conflict with the party line. And you don't have to look to totalitarian societies to see the same dynamics at work. In our own country, the Bush administration routinely manipulated, suppressed, and spun data to push its own line on (i.e., against) global climate change. Corporations such as oil companies brazenly distort data to hide the ecological damage their activities are causing. And don't get me started on the food industry, which does everything in its power to selectively use data to promote its "health" messages.

So no, even the data itself does not exist in some idealistic values-free Zone of Objectivity. Quite often, we have to consider the source.

But when it comes to big-picture conclusions drawn from that data, now we are entirely within the realm of the greater environment (spanning everything from the small scale of the interpersonal dynamics withing the individual research unit to contemporary culture as a whole). There's just no escaping it. This is neither a bad nor a good thing - it just is!

Now my own expertise happens to be in astronomy, so forgive me for using a lot of examples from that field. Might I suggest reading the (short) book "How I killed Pluto, and Why it had it Coming" by Mike Brown, a quite readable and frankly hilarious account of the politics, personalities, shenanigans, skullduggery, and at times even borderline criminality that surrounded the decision to demote Pluto from the status of "planet". This is a perfect example of how, even when absolutely no one contests the actual data involved, the issues of "World View" that might be affected by such information are the furthest thing possible from objectivity.

I could go on, but this post is getting too long as it is. My point is in no way to denigrate science. (I love my healthy teeth, thanks to the science of dentistry!) But let's not endow it with properties (such as objectivity) which it does not deserve.



Debunking Christianity: Can You Not See What It Takes to Believe? You Must Bash Science!
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, February 25, 2011

God's Knowledge/Man's Knowledge

Jeff Downs has posted an audio of a discussion of the controversy between God's Foreknowledge and Man's Knowledge


Some of you are familiar with what has become known (inappropriately) as the Van Til/Clark controversy; dealing with what constitutes God's knowledge and man's knowledge. Recently the crew from the Reformed Forum spent some time with Dr. Scott Oliphint (who sat under Van Til and now teaches Apologetics at WTS) and addressed this controversy. Click here to listen.

If you are not familiar with Dr. Oliphint, he is the author of The Battle Belongs to the Lord and Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology, both books dealing with apologetics. He is also one of the editors of Christian Apologetics Past and Present: A Primary Source Reader. Dr. Oliphint is certainly one of my favorites when it comes to contemporary apologetic thought.

God's Knowledge/Man's Knowledge
Enhanced by Zemanta

FacePalm of the Day #66 - Debunking Christianity: Christians demand that I must show their faith is impossible before they will see that it is improbable.

John Loftus wrote  a fairly lengthy post but I will not be responding to the entire post. Instead I will cover the worse part of it.

Science has closed the gaps in our knowledge of the workings of the world. With each gap that is closed believers move the goal posts, claiming that their God is still active in the world. In effect, until science can close every single gap they will have reason to believe. That is, either science must show it's impossible for God to exist or they can believe despite the massive onslaught of science. Because of this science some of the more reasonable believers will say God is not to be found in the gaps, but instead he is the sustained of the world. Yet look at what they've done. Either they argue from the gaps of they don't. If they do, then they must continually move the goal posts, which means they were wrong in the past. Thus arguing from the gaps is an argument from ignorance. If they don't do this, then this universe looks indistinguishable from a universe without God in it at all.

To be honest I don't think Loftus realizes that the more questions Science answers the more questions get asked. There is not a single thing that we can completely exhaustively claim to have fully explained.

Unless we can prove we do not live in a Matrix, or are not dreaming right now, or are not some brains in a vat, then believers will opine we all have faith. And if they can get us to admit this then they drive a whole truckload of Christian assumptions through that small crevice. Can we prove any of these things are not the case? Then they have every bit of a right to believe the wildly improbable things they do about a triune god, an incarnation, transfiguration, resurrection, ascension, and final judgment. This is a huge non-sequitur. There is no parity here at all, even if we grant these things, which I've written on before.

The bottom line is, we assume a whole lot - things we can't prove. For example, how do we know the light has the same speed all over the universe in all inertial reference frames? We don't really know that but its seems probably true. Loftus' whole argument seems to hinge on him thinking that "a triune god, an incarnation, transfiguration, resurrection, ascension, and final judgment" are all improbable. However he has not proven that they are improbable.  No one can. If something is designed and put into place -  probability is a stupid thing to consider because probability has nothing to do with it. If Jesus' Resurrection was an predetermined and deliberate act than there is no possibility that it would not happen. Science is full of finding out that the improbable is not only just possible but necessarily true.

There are other things to say but I'll stop for now. Others can chime in with more examples. But just think if a banker told someone that he would probably bring financial ruin upon himself if he invested all his money in one particular stock. What would you think if this guy invested his money anyway because his banker could not prove he would bring financial ruin on himself? Think on this and you see exactly what believers continually do.

I think the investment analogy is flawed. The Christian message is not that if you accept Christ you will bring ruin on yourself. A better analogy is of a person being bankrupt and hopelessly in debt and deserving to spend the rest of their lives in jail given the amount they owe and can never pay back. Then that person gets the news that all they have to do is believe and trust the one they owe and they can get the debt washed away and lavished with untold wealth - more than they can imagine. That is the Gospel. The biggest facepalm of all is that Loftus does not understand what he rejects.


Debunking Christianity: Christians demand that I must show their faith is impossible before they will see that it is improbable.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, February 24, 2011

The Dunamis Word: The Most Dangerous Place

Elder Harvey Burnett has written a very interesting blog posting pointing out a backlash of criticism of the picture on the left. Given the following paragraph:

In response to a high abortion rate in New York city which touts over the 17,000 black babies murdered at the hands of abortion providers in 2010. That's almost 50 abortions per day by black women in New York City alone. Then there's the statistic that although Blacks only comprise 13% of the US population, they are over 36% of abortions annually. Pointing out that dismal statistic is an antiabortionist group called Thatsabortion.com. Building on solid statistical data they have undertaken to place another add bringing attention to what can only be considered to be a genocide occurring within the black community.


I find it amazing that pro-Abortion organizations and Planned Parenthood would be crying foul. They don't deny the fact that in America Black people make up a small part of the population but make up more the 1/3 of abortions. I highly recommend, Elder Burnett's post because he traces the fact the genocide against Black people and poor people has always been the aim of the Planned Parenthood. No, y'all, getting rid of Hitler did not get rid of Eugenics. Am I offended by the poster? Nope. But I am offended by people pretending they ain't trying to kill us while pretending to do us a favor - advocating disobeying God all for the sake of convenience. No one can tell me that even 90% of those abortions was because of rape.

The Dunamis Word: The Most Dangerous Place
Enhanced by Zemanta

Fistbump Quote of the Day - Confident Christianity: Distorted View Of Reality?

Mary Jo Sharp posted the following statement:

My last post on the Christian university and worldview had a similar line of thinking. Are we, as Christians, learning doctrines as somewhat intangible, lofty ideals or are we taking into consideration what each doctrine entails for our individual lives and our lives within the human community? Are we working through how these doctrines effect our daily lives? Let me state it one more way: If Christianity is true, what effect does its truthfulness have on our lives? I believe that if Christianity is true then a lack of understanding of the doctrines and themes of the Christian faith would leave us with a distorted view of reality. What do you think?

I agree withe her 100%! Amen and Amen!!!!

Confident Christianity: Distorted View Of Reality?
Enhanced by Zemanta

In Memory of Dwayne McDuffie: A Look Back at the Man Comics Needed - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

CoolB and Dwayne McDuffieImage by CoolB047 via Flickr
At Comics Alliance, David Brothers has written a great article on the work of Dwayne McDuffie. I'm going to miss McDuffie's genius. I have always enjoyed his work and it's always great to see someone who share a similar cultural background to mine being successful in industries that people of color don't usually have opportunities to thrive in. I echo, Brothers' words where he wrote about Dwayne McDuffie:


The man was a visionary, and I'm extraordinarily thankful for the work he gave us before he died.

One of the things that Brothers describes is McDuffie's ability to really craft character-driven stories that were just plain fun and action packed. He included a page from a Fantastic Four issue he wrote. It's very poignantly illustrates how well he understood the characters he wrote. It was true regardless of if it were Batman, Superman, Thor, Captain America, Static, Black Panther, Storm, or Ben 10!


In Memory of Dwayne McDuffie: A Look Back at the Man Comics Needed - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Enhanced by Zemanta

John Lennox & Peter Atkins in Dialogue Video/Audio - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted a debate between John Lennox and Peter Atkins on science and the existence of God. You can get to the audio at the following link and I have embedded the video below. They discuss just what science can and cannot tell us about God.


Duelling Professors from Grenville Kent on Vimeo.


John Lennox & Peter Atkins in Dialogue Video/Audio - Apologetics 315
Enhanced by Zemanta

Debunking Christianity: New Zealand Quake Kills 65 And Traps Hundreds! Isn't God Good?

This is exactly one of those arguments that shouldn't make sense to the person making it but it seems that John Loftus actually thinks that either no Christian has ever given a good answer to this objection or that this argument is actually a huge problem.

I consider the evidential case against a good God from naturally caused suffering to be the most significant problem for believers.

Can anyone tell me why God did not do a perpetual miracle by averting that earthquake? If God was concerned about remaining hidden then no one would suspect he did anything if he averted it, because it would not have taken place. Anyone? Anyone?





No one can say why God did not miraculously stop the earthquake. I live on and near several fault lines in California. I can't explain why God allowed a huge earthquake in New Zealand but thus far today has spared me, my family, friends, and neighbors the same fate or worse. Jesus dealt with this question. And he dealt with it by pointing out that in asking the question we are looking in the wrong spot and asking the wrong question.


1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” - Luke 13:1-5


His disciples were wondering why did God allow Pilate to abuse Jewish people in such a horrible way. Jesus takes their question and gets them to think in a way that we don't typically think. We usually wonder, what did a person do to deserve such horror when they suffer. Jesus points out that just because you are spared it doesn't make you better or more righteous than the ones who suffer. This isn't just regarding evil we perpetrate on each other but natural disasters and accidents - like the earthquake in New Zealand and the fall of the tower of Siloam.

So why do bad things happen to people who don't seem to deserve it? Wrong question. Why do good things happen to us? Answer: God's mercy. As for how to deal with the problems of life, I have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the promises of God on which to stand.


28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. - Romans 8:28-29


What have you got when the rubber meets the road and your life seems to fall apart and things happen that you could not have possibly foreseen. Without Jesus, what is the point? None.

Is God good? All the time!!!! Even in the midst of a deadly Earthquake. It could have been far worse. God continued to provide mercy for the people living there. Best take Jesus' words to heart and repent because our time of suffering is coming if not here already. 

Debunking Christianity: New Zealand Quake Kills 65 And Traps Hundreds! Isn't God Good?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Reginald Hudlin on the Black Panther

Here are a couple of Reginald Hudlin discussing being a black writer in the Entertainment Industries







Enhanced by Zemanta

Dwayne McDuffie on the realities of the Black writer in the comic book i...

Here is a video of Dwayne McDuffie on the realities of being a comic book/Hollywood writer who happens to be black.



Enhanced by Zemanta

FistBump of the Day to "Thinking God's Thoughts"

I really enjoy reading Brennon's blog and his Facebook quote. I really wanted to call attention to a couple of things he posted today.

On the origin of morality
Many atheists, when trying to ground moral values, appeal to something like human well being as a guide for morality. This seems to be patently insufficient of a ground for morals, because it itself is simply a moral judgment. It is good to promote human well being and bad to stifle it is a moral value itself, and therefore can't be the ground of moral values. As I said to one commenter on Sam Harris' attempt to use this as a ground, "Saying that well-being of some sort is good is simply another moral claim, so it hasn't reached any sort of ontological base at all. If this is Harris' base, then he seems to have stopped short of a true ground for morality and settled for a branch. [In other words] you can't say that a moral value is itself the ground of moral value."

This is why most attempts at ethics today are silly little exercises in futility.
On Science and Teleology
So I'm picking on my ethics teacher again, which may turn into quite a habit for the next 12 weeks or so. This statement (the title of this post) was one of the supposed problems with Thomas Aquinas' natural law theory. My teacher really didn't argue for this assertion. How has Science done this?

Is it because it can now explain how things work? What does that have to do with whether they have an end they were designed for?

It seems to me that this is just an assumption that flows from, at least, methodological naturalism. But even if you accept that science can't access the reason for which something was created, but can only tell us how it was created/works, it certainly doesn't follow that it wasn't created for some reason.

Not to mention that this seems to be patently untrue anyway. Certain fields of science seem to make their living on detecting teleology. Archaeologists do this often.
I admit that I don't agree with everything he writes but I really like these posts. Thanks, Brennon! All I can say is "Amen and amen."

Thinking God's Thoughts: Settling for a Branch
Thinking God's Thoughts: Modern Science Rejects Teleology
Enhanced by Zemanta