FacePalm of the Day #143 - Misrepresenting Adam and Eve Again

Let's think about this for a moment. You can argue all you want that Adam and Eve did not exist. However once you make an argument like a following, you'd better get what the Bible says correct. John Loftus never seems to be able to do that. Here is a case in point.

Before eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve either knew that disobeying God was evil or they didn’t. If they didn’t, then they can’t be blamed for disobeying him. If they did, then they already possessed the knowledge that God had forbidden. Either way, God could not justly banish them from Eden. (Adduced by Richard R. La Croix.) Link.

Adam knew that disobeying God was wrong. He knew shouldn't do it. You don't need to understand a command to obey it. Would you take that excuse from a child? Why would anyone think that it would fly ever? No way would my parents buy that. No parent would. Go back and read Genesis 3. The knowledge was not forbidden - eating the fruit was.

Debunking Christianity: Adam and Eve Again

Faceplant - Debunking Christianity: William Lane Craig On Whether the Witness of the Spirit is Question-Begging

What do you get when a student who's decided much of his teacher's teachings are wrong and that teacher doesn't consider the student worthy or ready to debate? You get this post by John Loftus. He seems real bitter that William Lane Craig won't debate him, but I think it's because of posts like these. Craig is still looking out for his formal student and doesn't seek to utterly discredit and embarrass him in public. I'm not the first or only one who pointed that out. I don't agree with everything that William Lane Craig says but I think his arguments are way more logical and reality based than Lofus'. In this case Loftus bemoans the idea that most committed Christians want to be persuaded by the impossibility of what they believe before they reject it and that it's an impossible

Christians repeatedly are forced into claiming that their faith is possible and demand that we show their faith is nearly impossible before they will consider it to be improbable, which is an utterly unreasonable epistemological standard.

I'm not forced at all into that. Considering the consequences of being wrong about Christianity are much heavier for the atheist than for the born-again believer. Instead of whining that you can't prove that Christianity is impossible, perhaps Loftus should re-evaluate why his soul and eternal destiny mean so little to him that just a possibility that Christianity is not true is good enough for him to reject Christianity. He admits he can't prove it's true only that he doesn't like it. That's it. That's all he's got.

Debunking Christianity: William Lane Craig On Whether the Witness of the Spirit is Question-Begging

American Atheists claim that “True Christians” commit murder | True Freethinker

Mariano has posted a summary post of a series he wrote in which he "dissect his [American Atheists’ Al Stefanelli] article Christian Fundamentalists: Deeply Disturbed Psychotic Sociopaths in which he seeks to distinguish “fundamental Christian” from “Christian fundamentalist." Read it at the following link.

American Atheists claim that “True Christians” commit murder | True Freethinker

Answering Muslims: Dude, Who Killed My Prophet?

Well, David Wood promised to have a video - shorter - that just states his arguments regarding the death of Muhammad without the reference. Now we have both. Thanks!




Answering Muslims: Dude, Who Killed My Prophet?

William Lane Craig vs. Peter Millican Debate Audio - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted the audio for the debate between  Dr William Lane Craig and Dr Peter Millican. at Birmingham University on October 21, 201. Take a listen. I think William Lane Craig won this one too, but at least Peter Millican was willing to show up and debate. I disagree with him on many of  conclusions and reading but at least he was respectful about it.


William Lane Craig vs. Peter Millican Debate Audio - Apologetics 315

The Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem and William Lane Craig

One of the best evidence that  Dr William Lane Craig uses for the existence of God is that the universe had an absolute beginning is The Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem. Dr Craig often states it like this:

…three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. -W.L Craig “Contemporary Cosmology and the Beginning of the Universe”

Recently,  Dr Craig debated Dr Peter Millican and tried to counter by quoting Dr Vilenkin as explaining that maybe the universe was contracting before it was expanding. To which Craig pointed out that Vilenkin had also said that the universe would be unstable.with so many singularities that expansion would be unlikely.  Added further, Dr Craig has quoted Vilenkin as saying:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.

and:

[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

But Dr Vilenkin is not in agreement that the expansion of the universe  suggesting that the universe has an absolute beginning is evidence for God.

Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist.

I disagree with Dr Vilenkin. Luke Muehlhauser has posted an interesting article on this and quotes a Jain poet as an example of a logical paradoxes in believing the universe was created,

The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected.
If God created the world, where was he before creation? …
How could God have made the world without any raw material? If you say he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression…
Thus the doctrine that the world was created by God makes no sense at all…¹

Where was God before creation? God is omnipresent - spatially, temporally, and simultaneously.  There has never been a point at which God does not exist. This is what God told Moses.  God sustains God's self with God's stuff. This is what YHWH means.I have always been amazed about how atheists are really quick to try to assert that God should be subjected to time as we are.God isn't.

Here is an article written by Dr William Lane Craig called Contemporary Cosmology and the Beginning of the Universe.

Here is another article that attempts to refute Dr Craig called Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe. Both of these articles are better than Dr Millican did, but not well enough to be convincing.

If you want to see the paper Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin wrote check out this link.

Also here is a video presentation on The Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem

FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #15

Okay, Johnny P has decided not to switch tactics but again tries to attempt to mix in "logic" with his ad hominem instead of just name-calling. So here is round 15.

I had said
"Well, at least your arguments have evolved over the past month and are more clearly defined as you struggle to debate me. Evolved but not improved. You're welcomed by the way. I've been toying with you and it's been fun."

What a tool. Hiding behind ridiculous assertions in the hope that no one ACTUALLY reads the crap you have spewed over the last month. You are such a desperate man. I have skimmed this post, which is more than I did for the last few. You are the most disingenuous, self-deluded nutjob I have had the misfortune to interact with.

Wait for it. He's going to try to point to specific examples. Adorable. I hink he skims the Bible like he skims my posts. It would explain why he sometimes makes no sense.

As someone others said of you once, do you have a girlfriend? Friends? A life? Because if you are like this in real life, if you ever opened your mouth to speak the lies and distortion evident here, people would want to shut it in a not very complimentary manner.

Wait the "logic" will kick in eventually.

The sheer mind-numbing stupidity of your question begging assertions are hilarious:

"Well, Johnny P, if God had done that, you wouldn't be here would you? Nope. In fact none of us would be here, because none of can love God without His help."

You'd be laughed out of the philosophy and theology departments of your local university in shame!

Johnny, I'll take it that you can't answer the question. And given the things that you have said about theology and philosophy are demonstrably wrong (which I have pointed out), I wonder what makes you think that the rhetorical question is wrong and baseless given the Christian worldview you think you know well enough to criticize?I'm wondering what books you have skimmed to think that? (Not rhetorical) Maybe the problem is you don't understand the point being made. It would explain a lot. (Try the "T" in "Tulip" in Reformed Theology for help)


The fact you don't seem to see the logical invalidity of your arguments is sad, really.

You haven't demonstrated a logical invalidity but instead incessantly say its wrong and hide from any challenges to prove yourself correct. But that's okay, God loves you anyway.

Here is YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF YOUR DISHONESTY:

"You fallaciously conflated still-births and miscarriages with Abortions"

I think you'll find I said 'natural abortion'.

Yeah, you did. I still say you are mixing categories. Look I don't know if you are an American, but given some clues I'd say not. However, I think you should know a miscarriage or a still-birth is qualitatively different from a surgical procedure.

So, point 1 - you MISQUOTED ME AGAIN.

I wasn't tying to quote you. Did you see quotation marks? Italics? Standard English grammar, look it up.

Point 2, a definition from the OED of abortion -"the expulsion of a fetus from the uterus by natural causes before it is able to survive independently.

or from nrcl.org - "The term "abortion" actually refers to any premature expulsion of a human fetus, whether naturally spontaneous, as in a miscarriage, or artificially induced, as in a surgical or chemical abortion. "

Actually, to have been more accurate, I could have used the term naturally spontaneous abortion as in "A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion for natural, physiological reasons" so as not to confuse it with a herbal abortion.

This is why it's good to define terms. Interesting that you would want to discuss and defend your definition of "abortion" but will not discuss what you mean about "perfect world". The word has been changed and I didn't get the memo. You seem to be using a different definition than I am and I apologize for accusing you of confusing them. You are right that people are using "Natural Abortions" to describe miscarriages. It still doesn't change the point that God has a plan for everything that happens including miscarriages. I can admit when I'm mistaken, and you don't seem able to. Interesting that one of the few points you have correct has little to do with the main topic.

But the fact that God allows these fetal abortions to occur naturally, by his 'design' - (did he not design the world, could he not stop them?), means that he is responsible for these occurrences - the fetuses certainly aren't. They aren't even sentient yet.

How do you know they are not sentient yet? And yes, it is by God's design and He has chosen not to stop them, but He has sufficient reason for what He does even if we don't. Don't like it, talk to him about it, like Job and Habakkuk talked to Him about the evils that concerned them.

And this is what you do time after f"cking time. It's an embarrassment to good thinking Christians with whom I debate every day.

Do what? Misquote you? Misunderstand you? Disagree with you? What? I think you are wrong. I've behaved far better than you have towards me. And also I have not misrepresented the Bible nor what Christians believe, but you have.

Literally every single sentence you have written in red is a shocker up there. And if you believe the biblical account of the flood in the face of
masses of empirical evidence to the contrary and an account in the Epic of Gilgamesh (Tablet XI) which predates the biblical account by a thousand years, and yet has verses verbatim, you are worse than I thought. Genetics, human geography, population statistics, biology, geology, palaeontology, etc etc all disprove the global flood myth. Your cognitive dissonance threshold must be really high.

I think you're over reaching. And my views are not all that out there just because you disagree with me. Let me ask you a question: Why does the Epic of Gilgahmesh (which I think is good story) describe a vessel that could not been sea worthy, but the Bible's description of the Ark describes a vessel whose dimensions are not only sea worthy but all ship built to those proportions of length-width-height is almost impossible to capsize in stormy ocean conditions? Why is it that are largest ocean-going-ship are also built to the same proportions? Be clear, I'm not suggesting that we got those dimensions from the Bible but that science validates something that no one else knew, but the Jews, for at least 4000 years.

And don't quote the bible to prove the bible, you nonce.

I'm trying to get you to agree on what the Bible says first, noob. Then we can discuss if its true or not.

Fallacious and a schoolboy error. It's not my fault there is bugger all else you can pull on to prove the verisimilitude of the biblical accounts. Thinking quoting John can answer the implications of divine personhood in atemporal existence is hilarious.

John gives the answer to your question. Perhaps you misunderstood it. If you need help, just ask.

You just keep getting schooled. More so by your own own goals. But hey, you carry on asserting and asserting, misrepresenting and throwing in continual fallacies. I'm sure you think you sound great, just swell.

Me schooled? Yup, everyday, just not by you. I did learn something about how people are now using the term "natural abortion" (and I think it's stupid unfortunate), but aside from that all I've learned from you is that you think that there is too much evil and suffering to make God's existence probable, and you think the Bible is in error, and you think I'm dumb but you can't prove any of it. Yup, lots to learn from you. Also you write large blog articles about why you don't think Christianity is not probable, punting to emotion, and then say you are not trying to show that Christianity is wrong

BTW, presuming you are a Calvinist, the belief that we have no free will is about the .nly area we might ever agree,

You don't have to be Calvinist to question whether or not we have free will. Considering how much you butcher what Christians believe, I take it that you have misunderstood Christians who happen to be non-Calvinist. I bet you don't even know any real reformed folk. You really should read more.

What had happen' was.....: FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #14