FacePalms and FacePlants

I've been thinking about the series of blog posts I have been using on my blog. Some might wonder why I post them. Sometimes there are arguments you come across that just make you shake your head in dismay due to their utter lack of logic and sense.

"FacePalm" means "(sometimes also face-palm or face palm) is the physical gesture of placing one's hand flat across one's face or lowering one's face into one's hand or hands. The gesture is found in many cultures as a display of frustration, embarrassment,^[1] shock, or surprise.^[2]" Source


"FacePlant" is a similar idea. It is used to described a failed attempt at something, I tend to use it as a strong description for a failed argument than a facepalm. It's not just a failure it's an epic failure.

Superhero Squirrels [Pics]

Superhero Squirrels [Pics]

The Cost of Being Batman | Visual.ly

Browse more data visualizations.

The Cost of Being Batman | Visual.ly

Related articles

• Pricey Superhero Graphics - The 'Cost of Being Batman' Infographic Totals the Astronomical Number (TrendHunter.com)
• Detailed Infographic Depicts 73 Years of Visual Batman History
• $682-Million: The Real Cost Of Being Batman (Allegedly)

President Obama's Great Grandfather On His Mother's Side Was A Slave

 This from Ancestery.com:

We explored thousands of historical documents in our research and discovered that John Punch, the first African enslaved for life in America, was the 11th great-grandfather of President Barack Obama.

Wow, I should not be surprised because many Americans who are part of families that have been here in this country for centuries are also descended from African slaves - even white Americans.  It used to be we went with the "one-drop" rule in America, but now that it's obvious that more people would be considered black who have white skin, no one seems to bring it up  anymore. So yup, our first President of African-descent is also the descendant of a slave. He's definitely an American.


President Obama's Great Grandfather On His Mother's Side Was A Slave

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Jesus Was A Coward When Facing Death

Harry McCall hates Jesus. It is the only explanation for why he would so completely lie about who Jesus is. 

While apologists argue that Jesus was God incarnate; now these same Christian apologists must argue that Jesus and God are not one as God had to abandoned Jesus during the Passion in order explain why Jesus is now a faithless coward! 


People who argue that God had to abandon Jesus while he was on the Cross during the passion do not understand the Deity of Jesus Christ or what Psalm 22 means. When Jesus quoted the beginning of Psalm 22, he was pointing to the whole Psalm which clearly shows that God did not abandon the one who was speaking although he suffered. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. He was never not God. God cannot abandon God. 



So why was Jesus such a scared coward when we consider the noble death of Socrates? Why was Jesus such a coward in the face of death compared to the death of Stephan in Acts 7: 54 – 60 or any of the future Christian martyrs (Both those discussed by Eusebius or in Foxes Book of Martyrs)? Why was Jesus such a coward not facing death eagerly as we find with other Jews in both Joeseph and in the Books of Maccabees? 

I am amazed how McCall fails to really discuss what Jesus said as he was communing with the Father in the Garden. 


In Conclusion: 
Despite the ploy of apologetic theology, the Gospels have given the Christian world a whining and crying cowardly Jesus whose final words on the cross was to blame God for all his cowardly problems in dealing with death. 

Whining and crying? McCall has no idea or understanding just how bad crucify really was. 

In the final analysis, the Bible present us - not with a Jesus whose mental state and actions would have won him aCongressional Metal of Honor, but a cowardly Jesus. A Jesus (despite all his recorded supernatural powers and preaching to everyone on God’s never ending faith) who would likely have been shot for desertion! 

Yes, "desertion", let us reflect on that. Jesus did not run when they came to arrest Him. He let them take him. If He was such a coward, why did He take the time to heal the man who's ear Peter cut off? Let's look at what Jesus fully said to the Father.


⁴² He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”- Matthew 14:42

Gee, I wonder why McCall didn't even bother to quote the whole verse! He either is lying on Jesus or he is incompetent. Take you pick. 

Further, Jesus not only did not run away, he made no attempt to hide Himself. 

⁴⁵ Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour has come, and the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. ⁴⁶ Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!” - Matthew 14:45,46

Coward? Not even close.I sure hope McCall will gain the courage to be honest about what Scripture really says.

Debunking Christianity: Jesus Was A Coward When Facing Death

Debunking Christianity: There is Nothing to Wager. Just Live a Good Life.

So...Who do you believe? If you think Pascal was wrong then you think that you are capable of living a life good enough to be worthy. Are you really that sure that judged sorely on the basis of the way you have lived the virtues that you know you should have that you are not worthy of judgement? Really? If you really think you have lived a life free of evil then you are lying to yourself.


Debunking Christianity: There is Nothing to Wager. Just Live a Good Life.

“How to React to a Chris Nolan Film” [Comic]

“How to React to a Chris Nolan Film” [Comic]

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: According to the Bible: Christians and Atheists Will Rot In Their Graves

Harry McCall continues to try and fails to use the Bible to demonstrate that the Bible makes Christianity wrong.The problem is that he fails to correctly understand what the Bible says in favor of his conclusions that the Bible does not support the idea of an afterlife in general or heaven and hell in particular. He even pretends that he can support his claims with the Bible. It'd be cute if it wasn't an utter failure. The Bible does not support him.



“for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints>.” 1 Corinthians 14:33

I totally agree with this scripture. McCall attempts to use this scripture to show that there is confusions as to what Christians and Jews have believed about the afterlife.



Some Modern Christian Afterlife Myths:

1. Last week a Christian woman who - had just lost her year old daughter (her first and only child) - was interviewed on TV. She said that at the time of her daughter’s death, she begged God to kill her so she could go to Heaven and be with her daughter.

So what myth does McCall think is being believed here? Is he saying that  the woman's daughter is not in heaven? If he wants to show that she believes a myth you would have to prove that either the baby didn't go to heaven or that there is no heaven.  Let's see if he can do that.

2. Southern Gospel songs such as “When We All Get To Heaven”, “I Won’t Have To Cross Jordan Alone”, “I’ll Fly Away” as well as the Carter Family’s favorite, “Will the Circle Be Unbroken” were written and sung based on the belief that at death, the righteous human soul goes immediately into the presence of the Lord (God / Jesus) in Heaven to be joined for eternity with loved ones.


Again, McCall would have to show that there is no heaven or that people are not really going to be present with God upon death.



3. Christian testimonial stories abound were the newly departed human soul either hovers above their body or is “ascended to Heaven or descended to Hell” only to be called back to the body doing resuscitation as a testimonial. This legend is then peddled to promote “proof” that an afterlife does exist and usually nets the claimant thousands of dollars as they travel the Christian circuit giving hope and inspirational talks on the Near Death Experience .

The Bible in no way tells us that this is how things really happen. So I'm going to ignore this one.  I see no reason to try to explain or defend this one - it's not about the Bible. As for whether it is true or not, I find it amazing that atheists almost never discuss the fact that unbelievers also have near-death experiences where they experience hell.




4. Based on two of the largest Christian denominations (Roman Catholic and LDS Mormon), one is given the theological legend that Christian dead go immediately to Heaven being reunited with their loved ones (though at just what age and state of metal maturity is open to question, that is; will dad be a child, young man or an elderly person as he was known before he died which begs the question as to how Christian dead will know one another?).

LDS Mormons one of the largest Christian denominations? LOL!!!!!!! I'll ignore such a stupid mistake for now but not having answers to such questions does not mean that heaven is not true.
 
5. On the other hand, I’ve also heard believers project an afterlife in order to get justice on corrupt politicians or evil people with statements such as; “They got away with it here, but they won’t get away from the judgment of God.”; thus again vindicating an afterlife. With the theme of Heaven being the largest selling points of Christianity, it is little wonder that pop Christian culture keeps this theological myth alive.
Again in order to show this as a myth, McCall would have to show that the Bible does not tell us that corrupt politicians or evil people are not punished in Hell or that there is no hell or heaven. 


6. Finally, the common Christian statement on the death of a loved one: “They are in a better place now.”



McCall would have to show that there is no heaven or that heaven is not better than here.
 
For the purpose of this post and for the sake of argument, let’s assume the Bible is an inspired book from God that contains revelations on the State of the Dead. As such, I’ll list a Biblical timeline on how the popular view of an afterlife evolved followed by some major Christian dogmas on the subject.\

Yes, let us agree to that. The Bible tells us about the state of the dead. The problem is that the Bible does not always agree with dogmas of churches.


A Chronology of the Evolution of the Christian Afterlife

A. Pre-Exilic Israel (9 – 8 century BCE to 586 BCE): Like all her neighbors, Israel (a term used by the Northern Kingdom (exiled 722 BCE) and taken over by the Southern Kingdom of Judah (exiled 586)), or the Hebrews believed the souls of all people (both good and bad) continued to exist in Sheol - a place darkness and loneliness under the earth and opposite from the gods who lived on top of a sacred mountains (such as Sinai).





What part of the Bible tells us that sheol is "a place darkness and loneliness under the earth and opposite from the gods who lived on top of a sacred mountains (such as Sinai)."? Sinai isn't even in Israel. Also the Bible never describes Sinai as the place YHWH lives. Projecting the beliefs and practices of ancient Israelites is truly an epic fail when there is no Biblical basis aside from the fact that the Old Testament records continually admonishes Israel to reject them. Fail number one.
 
B. Exilic / Post-Exilic Israel 586 BCE to the Hellenistic Period 332 BCE: Theological monotheism theism (Yahweh only party) suppresses Pre-Exilic theology’s polytheism and human sacrifice. Ancestral cult worship (divinatory and magical practices with the dead) are prohibited in both the Torah and the Deuteronomistic History. Persian theological influence began to shape the ideas of good and evil and an afterlife. Now at death, there is no consciousness in Sheol nor is there any contact there with this world and God (Psalms 6:5, 30: 8 – 10, 88: 3-12, Job 3: 11-19, 14: 10 – 14, 21: 19 – 21; and Ecclesiastes 9: 3-10).



Israel's Canaanite neighbors surely practiced polytheism and human sacrifices and divination and magic, but Israel wasn't supposed to and there is not enough evidence to conclude that this only began after 586 BC. McCall references several scriptures the he claims shows that there "is no consciousness in Sheol nor is there any contact there with this world and God ". Is he right? Take a look for yourself: link. These scriptures do not expressly tell us that there is no consciousness in Sheol. They are about the finality of death and how once you die, it is not normative that you are coming back to the life you knew. I agree that these scriptures do not give as much revelation about the state of the dead as other scriptures in the Bible. These writers wrote down the parts of the revelation that they had and they didn't have the whole revelation. For example: why isn't there a discussion about heaven or being in the presence of God? Simple. The Bible doesn't really address that question. We can't say that the Old Testament righteous was not in the presence of God before Jesus' death, burial and Resurrection. I mean Elijah and Enoch were taken into heaven not Sheol. I think the vast majority of people went to Sheol before Jesus completed his mission. Fail number two.

C. Hellenistic Period 332 BCE to the Roman Period 63 BCE): The view that the righteous Jew will be either rewarded while the unrighteous Jew will be punished is made 
theologically orthodox in such forged texts as the book of Daniel (especially Daniel 12: 2 “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.”) Theologically, this verse in Daniel was in direct conflict with the afterlife position of the Testament of Abraham which teaches that immediately at death, Jewish souls receive judgment before Abel (Adam’s son) for either salvation or fiery torments (Test. Abraham 12 -13). Text such as Trito-Isaiah 66: 24 ("Then they will go forth and look on the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched; and they will be an abhorrence to all mankind.") will influence the writer of the Gospel Mark to have Jesus state in “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” (Mark 9: 48) Also Paul uses the theology of the Hellenistic book of the Wisdom of Solomon to paint the human race with Original Sin.

I'd like to see McCall demonstrate that the Book of Daniel is a forgery. And so what if Daniel is in direct conflict with the Testament of Abraham? The Testament of Abraham is not just non-canonical for Christians but for Jews too. Why would you think Daniel is a forgery but the Testimonial of Abraham is not a forgery? Paul did not need the book the Wisdom of Solomon to get that Original Sin is a teaching. It is all over the Jewish canon.  Fail number 3.

D. The Roman Period 63 CE to the Council of Nicaea 325 CE: The conflict and tension of the theology of the so-called “Intertestamental Period” with its forge texts in the names of famous Israelite Patriarchs continued the confusion of an afterlife for Christianity with Paul view of an End Time bodily resurrection by stating in his final theological work of Romans 8: 10- 12 “But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh” now contrast with that of the late Gospel of John having Jesus state that the Christian’s soul has eternal life immediately ““Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.” (John 5: 24). However, Christian eschatology remains in contradictory tension in that if the righteous soul is ALREADY with God in Heaven, then why would there ever need to be a resurrection of the body? Thus, Christians must face the fact that the majority of the New Testament (likely 99%), especially Paul’s letters and the Book of Revelation both teach that all souls (both good and evil) sleep in the earth (much like the Israelite dead did in Sheol) until the general resurrection and Final Judgment when Jesus returns. Soul Sleep is also the theme of other the Nicaea Creed and other Christian Creeds. Finally, the Bible never tells us how a place under the earth where all the dead go (Sheol) becomes modern Hell or how Christians go up into the sky to live with God (proof positive that a the theology of an afterlife is “subject to change without notice!).



So many errors...so little time. The "intertestamental period" can't be between the years he gives because "intertestamental" means between the old and new testaments. And the New Testament was completed during the first century but the Council of Nicea was in the fourth century. One of the Epistles of Paul, 1st Corinthians,  tells us that some in the early church did not think that there was a need for a physical resurrection but Paul and the other Apostles made it clear that there is and the quote from John also points that Jesus did teach a Physical resurrection. In the New Testament it is pointed out that the body does go into the ground - not the soul. When evaluating Creeds, you should ask yourself "Does the Bible agree with the creed?" In many cases it doesn't. Hell and Sheol are not that dissimilar. McCall seems to forget how Jesus described the state of the dead in Sheol. Read Luke 16:19-31. I realize that some might think that does not mean that Solomon understood Sheol this way when he wrote Ecclesiastes, but I think its the most complete description of Sheol in the Bible. I leave it to those who disagree to show that it's not.

E. Beginning with Cyprian of Carthage (died 258 CE) some theologians came to view Heaven as a place where people will meet their relatives and friends forming an eternal society with them.


So what? Bible doesn't talk about that. The Bible refers to the full relationship we will know God for all eternity.


F. Purgatory: This Catholic dogma as founded by Pope Gregory the Great (540 – 604) and is an afterlife place where all souls of the faithful must be purified before being allowed into Heaven.

Purgatory is not in the Bible. Does not matter if its wrong and it is. Fail number 5.
 
G. Limbo: To counteract the claim of St. Augustine that all unbaptized infant are damned, a state of both none suffering and no Heaven was invented. This place for unbaptized babies has basically been discontinued since 1950 when Catholic dogmas on non-baptized babies were changed.



Limbo is not in the Bible. I think that Augustine was wrong about all unbaptized infants going to hell, but it's moot. The Bible does not tells us that Limbo exists and just because the Catholic church changed it's position does not mean the Bible is wrong about hell or heaven.  Fail number 6.
 
H. The Peal of Great Price: The Latter Day Saint Books of Moses and especially Abraham (as “translated” by Joseph Smith) that states that all faithful Temple Mormons can become gods in the afterlife and populate other planets with “Spirit Children” just like the Christian God is doing now on earth.


One of the many reasons I reject Mormonism. There is nothing absolutely nothing in the Bible supports this. Failure number 7.


Though the Bible tells us that in Hebrews 13: 8 “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” apparently the doctrine of an afterlife never was!



Dude, Jesus did not change. Biblical teaching on the afterlife never changed. Pointing out how men has changed their beliefs about the  life, even to comical extremes (I'm looking at you, Mormons), does not show confusion or contradiction with what God has revealed about the afterlife.
 
So as an atheist, I must say: Welcome to the grave Christian . . . you’re not alone! 

Harry McCall

So, to the atheist, I must reply: "Thanks for the welcome to the grave, but I'm passing through." So what are we left with? I know: A failed attempt to show that the Bible conflicts with itself regarding what happens when you die. 

Let's look at what the Bible says:

We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.- 2 Corinthians 5:8


And I think its sheer and utter nonsense to claim that the Old Testament says nothing about Resurrection.  Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible and many think Job's story took place before or during Abraham's time.

²³ “Oh, that my words were recorded,
    that they were written on a scroll,
²⁴ that they were inscribed with an iron tool on^[b] lead,
    or engraved in rock forever!
²⁵ I know that my redeemer^[c] lives,
    and that in the end he will stand on the earth.^[d]
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
    yet^[e] in^[f] my flesh I will see God;
²⁷ I myself will see him
    with my own eyes —I, and not another.    How my heart yearns within me! - Job 19:23-27

Debunking Christianity: According to the Bible: Christians and Atheists Will Rot In Their Graves

Owned - Debunking Christianity: James Holmes and the Perpetual Miracle Objection

John Lofus has continued his series of blog posts in which he tries to judge God for allowing James Holmes to a massacre and injure innocent people at the premiere of the movie Dark Knight Rises at a movie theater in Aurora,Colorado. His basic contention is that if God is what Christianity says God is, then horrible tragedies should not happen leading him to the conclusion that God does not exist. In this series he tried to argue against why God didn't intervene. Before going through is post, I think it's important to remember that the fact that more people did not die in that theater is due that God did intervene. However God did not intervene in the way many of us think God should have, but we don't have all the facts or know what God's purposes are in this to judge God.


When it comes to the problem of suffering for a good omnipotent God, in my books I argue for the possibility of perpetual miracles from God that alleviate suffering among his creatures. I call it the Perpetual Miracle Objection. David Hume didn't use this exact phrase when he objected that the ordering of the world by general natural laws "seems nowise necessary" for God, but it's the same concept. Link. Let's apply this line of argumentation to what Holmes did and see another preemptive way God could have averted the massacre from happening if he exists and if he cares. 

I think scripture upholds that that God could indeed perform miracles continuously so that no one would ever suffer, but would that be really helpful? I don't think so. For example, what if it was impossible to fall off a cliff, building, or bridge because God perpetually changed physics because it would be impossible to die that way and each time it happens God delivers the person differently. If this were true, how would we be able to do science if we didn't know how nature would respond to what we do?  That's a huge show stopper. 

The other thing why is there a mutually exclusive choice between God being obligated to avert the massacre and the idea that if God does not avert it then he does not care or does not exist? Be real. Why would it follow that if God exist or cares that he should have stopped James Holmes. The choice that God would have a sufficient purpose for allowing is just left aside because Loftus has made up in his finite mind that there is no way that could make sense - something that John Loftus could not even begin to substantiate or explaln because he does not know everything.

Does anyone think God could not have created our world in such a way that some kinds of inventions could never be made? 

Sure God could have created our world so that some kinds of inventions could not be made. 

Nuclear weapons would be the most obvious example. If this universe didn't contain uranium (U-235) or plutonium (Pu-239) they could never be made. If such a universe could not be created or be self-sustaining without uranium and plutonium, then what's the problem for God? He could still perform one or more perpetual miracles after the fact, by making this world appear fine-tuned as it does without them. He could have created this universe as it now is and then later performed several perpetual miracles. What is there about an actually existing fine-tuned universe such that it is preferable over constant divine maintenance with the appearance of being fine-tuned? Is God lazy or something? He could even perpetually keep scientists from discovering how to make these kinds of weapons. But he either didn't think about these possibilities, or he cannot do what is required, or he doesn't care. You pick. 

There is no way that Loftus could know what possibilities God did or did not consider when God created our universe. I think it is really silly to suggest that the universe isn't fine-tuned because weapons grade uranium and plutonium exists. Again we don't know all the purposes for them and I'd argue that they may be very necessary for our very existence. As for the suggestion that God could have prevented scientists from discovering how to make nuclear weapons, I'd argue that God did exactly that. Ever wonder why the Nazis failed to develop the atomic bomb first? I mean given that all the best work in nuclear physics was being done in Germany. Why did they fail? Two major issues. Many of those German scientists were Jews and they went to work for the United States. The other problem was the Nazi scientists overestimated the amount of Uranium-235 needed to sustain an explosive nuclear reaction. They incorrectly concluded that there would be no way to extract enough U-235 for uranium ore to get the amount needed (about 15 kg). However, our scientist figured out how to do it (and it isn't easy) and that is one reason why not just any country can make nuclear weapons. And a plutonium bomb is even more difficult to make. God does indeed know what Gos is doing and we don't.

Weapons, that's what I'm talking about here.




But it was because of the same nuclear technology that made the bomb possible, also made the nuclear power plants possible. 

Let's weigh the advantages of the invention of gunpowder with the disadvantages of the human carnage it has caused. Would we be better off? Would the advantages be worth the human carnage?

And just how would anyone of us begin to judge or weigh that?

Would we be able to have roads, railroads, and bridges without it? Would we be able to mine gold or silver without it? Conversely, would we discover other means to kill large numbers of people just as easily? While these questions deserve more than simplistic answers I don't think there would be anything problematic in living without gunpowder.

 Gee, I wonder how would John Loftus go about proving that that is true.  Being finite and limited, no once could honestly believe that we don't need gunpowder.

 After all, human life flourished without it until it was discovered in the 9th century by the Chinese. The lack of gunpowder would inhibit the rise or modernity but why is that important to a God who merely wants to test our souls for an eternal reward or punishment? 

I wonder why John Loftus cannot see why God would want human beings to gain the technological knowledge that we have reached? Who says that God only wants to test our souls for eternal reward or punishment? God already knows that our souls are only worthy of punishment without God's intervention. The Bible tells us what God's purpose for God's people and it's not test our souls because God already knows how crappy we are. (see Romans 8:28,29). Regardless of whether you agree that it is true or not, you have to agree that God's purpose is not to test our souls for eternal reward or punishment.

This could go for such explosives as C-4 too, perhaps others.

Yes, it does. 

Without gunpowder James Holmes would only have a spear, sword and/or a knife. He would not do as much damage. He would not kill or maim so many people.

Not in a short time, but given that the other people in the theater were not armed, the loss of any life is not any less tragic even if there had been fewer people hurt of killed. It also would not change the thrust of the question for why God allowedJames Holmes to kill anyone. We don't know but what we cannot conclude is that God does not exist or that God does not care, no matter how much you want to assert it.

Debunking Christianity: James Holmes and the Perpetual Miracle Objection

Related articles

• 'Batman' Shooter James Holmes -- Sent Massacre Plans to Professor BEFORE the Shootings
• Miracle At Aurora Shooting 22 Years in the Making
• Graphic: James Holmes was a man with a plan
• John Loftus (Debunking Christianity) "is done"

Iron Man By The Numbers: Tony Stark’s Superheroics Are Super Expensive

Iron Man By The Numbers: Tony Stark’s Superheroics Are Super Expensive

The Gotham Times Can't Spell - G4tv.com

The Gotham Times Can't Spell - G4tv.com

"If God is All-Powerful, Why does Evil Exist?"

Why does God allow evil to exist - even thrive? This question is one of the major questions of life. It's important. Your answer to it shapes your worldview - your thoughts, your actions, and the things that you say. I've written many posts on theodicy. One of the reasons is that the objections underlying this question are what often what makes people decide to reject God. Here are some answers provided by several scholars and people who have studied and searched for an answer to this question.


Greg Koukl





Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: Greg Koukl- "If God is All-Powerful, Why does Evil Exist?"

Ravi Zacharias








Lee Strobel


http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/07/why-does-god-allow-tragedy-and-suffering.html


Norman Geisler







Bill Honsberger

http://www.havenministry.com/A%20letter%20on%20the%20problem%20of%20evil.htm


Walter Martin

Evil and Human Suffering, part 1 and part 2

William Lane Craig

  

Owned: Debunking Christianity: Omniscience Doesn't Exonorate God For The Colorado Movie Massacre

John Loftus is again attempting to use the tragic deaths and injuries from last Friday in Colorado to foolishly attempt to demonstrate  that God cannot exist because of the fact that this terrible event happened. Last time he tried debunk the "Free-Will" defense. This time, he tries to tear down God's omniscience as a theodicy. I don't think his argument works because I don't think that God's omniscience or our free will exonerates God for the actions of James Holmes. I want to be clear I am not claiming that I am owned Loftus but that God already has.

Previously I've suggested some reasonable ways a good God could have stopped James Holmes from firing on innocent people in that Colorado theater without revealing himself, and without abrogating Holmes's free will. Link. But is there another way to exonerate God in what I call the Omniscience Escape Clause? Could God have overriding reasons based in his omniscience for allowing that horrible tragedy to happen? I don't think so at all. While this isn't impossible it's extremely improbable to the point of being virtually impossible.

I still really don't like the free-will defense because we don't have it. We are going to see if Loftus can demonstrate that God cannot have sufficient reason for allowing evil and suffering.

Before proceeding there are very important questions concerning whether there is evidence for a personal three-in-one beginningless omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenelovent, omnipresent God who consequently never had a prior moment when he chose his values or his nature, never had a disagreement within the Godhead, never took a risk, never learned any new truths, and so on, and so forth. Questions include why this God created at all, why he set human beings up for a fall into sin, how it's possible for a God/Man to truly be a God/Man, or how this God/Man's death atones for sin, and why God expects people living in a scientific age like ours to believe in miracles in the superstitious past like the resurrection of this God/Man or be thrust into hell. These kinds of questions, if studied in scholarly depth, already diminish the probability that there is a God who needs to be exonerated for allowing the killing spree of Holmes. With no God there is no need to exonerate him.

Answering the above questions or not being able to answer the above questions does not prove or disprove that God exists. The Bible contains some of these answers and for the others, why is it so difficult to understand that God has not chosen to reveal that information to us?  For the sake of this post, Loftus assumes that God does exist in order to show that God's omniscience does not excuse God for allowing James Holmes' shooting spree.

Even granting this kind of God it's hopeless trying to exonerate such a deity based in omniscience. Theists claim we cannot fathom God’s omniscient ways. This is either a blanket statement covering all that we think we know about the ways of an omniscient God (i.e. nothing), or we can know something about the reasonableness of his ways.

I would argue that we neither have the right or ability to judge the reasonableness of God's ways. We have no right to judge God's actions any more than you do for fumigating your house.  Also we only know of God by what he has revealed to us through God's word and his creation.

As a blanket statement we would consequently have no way of knowing that God's ways are reasonable or good ones at all, and if that's true, we would also have no reasonable way of knowing whether we could trust him. 

That is one of the things that very much sets Christianity apart from every other worldview: the promise of a personal relationship with God. God shows you that God is worthy of your trust as your relationship grows. That relationship isn't an equal relationship - we are not God's equals.

But if instead we can know something about God's ways then we should know enough about them to know that they are reasonable and good ones.

Humanity is fallen. Why would you trust your own perceptions and thinking process to judge if God's ways are reasonable?  It's like trying to measure an infinitely straight line with a broken, cracked, and bent ruler.  It doesn't work.

But there is absolutely no reasonable explanation for why such a God would allow this tragedy to happen. Not one potential explanation works at all.

Bald assertion. How do you know that?  How can anyone really say that? I don't know why God allowed that or anything really bad to happen.  Sometimes we do find out when we see how things play out. Sometimes we don't find out.  The point is that God has proven to be trustworthy in my own life so I know I can trust God no matter how bad things get or what I feel.

Think otherwise? Then I challenge believers to try. Go ahead. Think. Don't proof-text from the Bible since that's also in question here.

For  Loftus, the Bible is questionable, but not looking at what it says you are saying you don't really want answers to your questions. 

Come up with one reasonable explanation for why God might have allowed this tragedy to happen when there were many reasonable ways he could have stopped it before it happened. Just one. Give it your best shot. 

Bottom line: I have no idea why God allowed James Holmes to kill and hurt so many people. It's also hasn't even been a week yet and we have no idea what will happen in the end. 

The bottom line is that theistic attempts to exonerate God based in his supposed omniscience cut both ways. We’re told God is so omniscient that we can’t understand his purposes, and this is true, we can’t begin to grasp why God allowed Holmes to do what he did if he exists. But if God is as omniscient as claimed, then he should have known how to avert this tragedy before it happened since we do have a good idea how he could’ve done so, especially since by not doing so there will be more people who reject the very faith he so desires people to have in him.

It's because of the purpose that God has  in mind that God allowed the tragedy to take place because of course God could have stopped him. God didn't. Why? I don't know yet, but one day we will know and  because of the good God has been to me in my life, including through my suffering, I know I can trust God.

The Omniscient Escape Clause as I have argued elsewhere, makes one's faith unfalsifiable and forces the skeptic to prove the believer's faith is impossible before he or she will ever consider it to be improbable--an utterly unreasonable standard of proof. 

I think this calls for something at the end. Hmmmm...

Q.E.D.

Loftus failed again to prove anything. Just because something is unfalsifiable does not make something false or true. By admitting that Christianity is unfalsifiable is tantamount to admitting that Christianity is undebunkable. He is admitting that he can only demonstrate that he thinks that Christianity is unreasonably improbable. He fails to prove this and I reject that conclusion.  That's really no where close to showing that Christianity is empirically false.

Debunking Christianity: Omniscience Doesn't Exonorate God For The Colorado Movie Massacre