Faceplant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why Do Christians Speak for God?

Again JM Green has attempted to come up with an argument against Christianity but only manages to show how ignorant a human mind is without God

The god of the Bible sure has a lot of self-appointed press agents.

In the Old Testament, Moses and the prophets spent a lot of time talking about what their god hated and loved. They detailed what behavior he expected, the loyalty and sacrifices that he demanded, and the ways he would retaliate if not obeyed. They revealed who god wanted killed, and under what circumstances. Whenever God was upset, feeling betrayed, or benevolent, his spokesmen let be known, as if they were divine mood rings.

Notice the unstated presupposition: That Moses and the Prophets offer varying and different messages throughout the Old Testament In other words that the message changed like people's moods change. He offers no proof of this or example where one Prophet contradicted another. Why? Because there is no such example.

In the New Testament, Jesus claimed to speak for God, as did the self-declared, late-to-the-party Apostle Paul. Peter and other apostles also vied for acceptance as their god’s mouthpiece, and the competition sometimes got quite fierce.

Again more assertion and no evidence. Given that Jesus is God, saying that he knows what God thinks and wants would make sense. As for Paul and Peter and the New Testament apostles and writers, we have the same case as for Moses and the Old Testament prophets: the consistency of their message speaks volumes as evidence for single source.

Today, nothing has really changed, except that with the various platforms of mass communication, there are ever so many more people who are eager to tell us the demands of their invisible deity. Lately, their god seems very obsessed with gays, although to be fair, Rev. Fred Phelps has been telling us for quite a long time that “God hates fags.”

"Invisible deity" does not equal "non-existent deity". The Bible tells us what God thinks about a great many of human behavior and activities. Fred Phelps does not epitomize the Biblical message at all and citing him as an example of someone who thinks they speak for God but doesn't fits this article really nicely but notice the vast number of Bible-believing Christians who realize that their opinions and concepts do not line up with the Bible and changes themselves to conform to God's viewpoint. They are out there too right along with the liars and hypocrites

The talking heads of the religious right churn out their doomsday pronouncements like clockwork:

[Go to the original post linked to the end to see the videos cited for "evidence"] For the sake of argument, let's agree that the article's author is correct about the people in the video. What difference does it make? None. Them being wrong does not invalidate the Bible nor God's existence.

For Catholics, the Pope is God’s voice on earth. For Protestants, at the local church level you have pastors telling people what the Man Upstairs expects of them. If you are in a Pentecostal church, it is even worse because through “tongues and interpretation” and “prophecies”, church members will issue spontaneous communications from heaven. This provides an open forum for every narcissistic attention-seeker to run wild. If only I had a dollar for every bogus ‘word from the Lord’ which I encountered over the years…

Anyone who only takes the word of another human being about what God expects of them deserves what they get - nothing. You can know God for yourself and you can check what they say against scripture. That is how you know if it is bogus or not. 

The point I would like to make is: In all of these instances, the only thing we actually have is humans telling us what their god thinks, feels, and wants. Never once do we have a miraculous voice from the sky in which God speaks for himself.

Oh finally there is a point...such as it is. No proof is offered showing us that Biblical revelation is not from God and the assumption being made that the only valuable evidence would be a "miraculous voice from the sky". Why? God does not live in the sky.God is everywhere. And God has already done that. Remember when Jesus was baptized? God did exactly that - speak from the sky - and people Green still reject the message. 

We have lots of press agents, but never once a public sighting of, or statement from the celebrity they claim to represent.

Oddly revealing isn’t it?

Yeah. Reveals a failed epistemology on Green's part. There are quite a few celebrities that are now reclusive and no long appear in public...for years!  People don't go around arguing that they never existed. This is truly a horrible argument.  Where is the "A" material?

If the Christian God truly existed, and wanted to make his thoughts known, he should be able to do that quite easily. I mean, if the aliens in the TV show “V” could appear over 29 major cities simultaneously and communicate a message, then it should be no big deal for a god to do something similar. An unmistakably supernatural communication from Yahweh, which each person heard in their own language, with no middleman, would clear up all confusion sown by competing denominations and theologies.

God has chosen to reveal himself to us the way he has done it. He put you in the best possible circumstances that you could find Him (see Acts 17)  and He has chosen to use the proclamation of the Gospel to draw people to Him If you don't like it, take it up with God. Most denominations are different from the stand point of traditions and worship styles - pick the one that gets you closest to God. As for choosing correct theologies - that is what the Bible is for - read it.

 But it hasn’t happened, and it won’t.

It doesn't need to.

The reason it won't is because the god of the Bible doesn’t exist.

Sure would like to see him prove that. 

That’s why Christians spend so much time speaking on his behalf.

That's not proof. That's completely wrong. Christian spend time talking on God's behalf so that people have not heard about God or know God can know that they are living beneath their privilege. They can have more. 

He is the dummy sitting on their knee, while they play the ventriloquist, projecting their fears and desires and prejudices with a godlike inflection. I think the fact that they talk so much on his behalf is a clue that deep in some dark, repressed corner of their reason, they know that if they stop speaking on behalf of God, there will be a deafening silence.

And then comes the insult. If you think that being a Christian means projecting your thoughts, emotions, prejudices and other foibles on  God, then you are doing it wrong. When I read the Bible and find out what God is like, I find a being wholly different than me and even something that if it had have been up to me would be different. That is how I know I'm not just saying that God agrees with me. He doesn't.  I have to agree with him  and that means changing what I think, feel, and do - and so does everyone else!

I realize that the picture on the left is meant to be derisive, but I agree with it because God does tell us when He doesn't like how we live. It's just that without salvation you are so trapped in your own sin you can't see how to get out of it.


So how about it Christians?

 A simple, modest experiment. For one month, no telling the world what your god wants, thinks, or hates. Also, while we’re at it, how about stopping the dishonest trickery of attributing things that humans accomplish to God – for example when doctors and nurses save a life , you don’t get to praise your Invisible Friend for that.

One month. Let’s see just how much your god can accomplish with no help from you…

God does not need my help, nor anyone else. I have a counter offer. If we can't thank God for anything good or for saving lives in a hospital, then unbelievers can't blames God for any evil and suffering. the  Euthyphro Dilemma and Problem of Evil and  Problem of Suffering arguments cannot be used. I don't think anyone will agree to this because it's the only argument they have although it's completely full of complete and utter failure.

Any takers?

You first.

Debunking Christianity: Why Do Christians Speak for God?

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: God's Burning Orphans - The Problem of Divine Hiddenness

The following video was posted on Debunking Christianity because it was thought by Brian Wilson to easily show that God does not exist because God is not easily recognizable with the possibility of going to hell hanging in the balance if you choose the wrong worldview.


Debunking Christianity: God's Burning Orphans - The Problem of Divine Hiddenness

The thing that seems to be completely lost on most Atheists, like the one who made this video, is that they don't understand Christianity. No where in the entire Bible does God tell us that he is obligated to save anyone! By default, every human being sins and deserves to go to hell. Bottom line. God would be fully justified if every human being ended up in hell - including me and you. The guy in the video is indeed correct about "free will". It's not an issue here but not because of the reasons he thinks. None of us are freed from sin except by Jesus. This means that while you reject God, you ain't free - except which sins you voluntarily do. As for the "good" things you may do best thank God for His mercy that you were allowed to do them - but it's not enough to keep you out of hell without Jesus.

The other bone of contention this video brings up is that the video author thinks that God has not done enough to make himself known to everyone. I agree. God has revealed himself to humanity the way He has wanted to on His terms not ours. We may not have free will because our servitude to sin, but God is not fettered as such. Look at what the Bible say.

²⁴ “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. ²⁵ And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. ²⁶ From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. ²⁷ God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ²⁸ ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’^[b] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’^[c]
29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. ³⁰ In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. ³¹ For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” - Acts 17:24-31

Paul in his proclamation was clear: God placed each one of us in the best possible circumstances to easily find Him so that we would seek Him out and the God is not far from either one of us. God is calling for each and everyone of us to repent. Want proof? Look no further than Jesus' resurrection from the dead. 

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
²¹ For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
²⁴ Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵ They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. - Romans 1:18-25

God has clearly made His existence known through what He has created. We have no excuse for unbelief. How does faith come in?

1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. ² This is what the ancients were commended for.

³ By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
⁴ By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.
⁵ By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.”^[a] For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. ⁶ And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. - Hebrews 11:1-6

Lastly, the example of the burning orphans is really bad and shows that the guy in the video has no idea what Christianity is teaching. This is what the metaphor should be. We are not like sweet innocent orphans. Imagine a house full of mass murderers, liars, cheaters, rapists, molesters, and people guilty of manner of evil. The house catches fire because the people inside set the fire. It's not a fireman, one whose job and obligation it is to put out fires and save lives, but one who is completely innocent who decide to save the undeserving people in the burning house although it will cost him his own life. That is what Jesus did. Given that everyone in that house deserves death and suffering, I see no problem with Jesus electing the ones he saves. He is just and free to do it according to his own will. Neither you nor I have the right to select who lives and who doesn't but God does and remain perfectly just and merciful! 

Truthbomb Apologetics: Why isn't God More Obvious?

Cover of Ravi Zacharias

Here is a great video of Dr Ravi Zacharias answering the question of why God seem hidden from so many people? I love his answer and I agree with him: God's not hiding just because we can't come to him on our terms instead of His.


Truthbomb Apologetics: Why isn't God More Obvious?

Debunking Christianity: Does God Really Show That He Loves Us?

Recently, John Loftus posted an article recently in which he makes an attempts to argue that Jesus' sacrifice does not show that God loves us. He says that if God really loved us he would make himself easier to find scientifically because the Bible is not good  enough evidence and would not allow "so much intensive ubiquitous gratuitous suffering in the world". As usual Loftus makes a great many bad assumptions demonstrating that he has no idea what he is talking about. Jesus did not just die for us. He died for his enemies. All of us at one time were his enemies - hostile and hated God. Unfortunately, John Loftus is still like that and despite what he thinks - always was. Despite our evil, Jesus died to redeem us - we were so encumbered and enslaved that we didn't even know we needed a savior. Loftus wrote this granting that Jesus died for us, but what he has missed is that he can't quantify nor demonstrate what "gratuitous" suffering is. Just how much is too much? He doesn't see the point that God does not just allow evil things to happen. God also restricts and contains evil. Evil is on a leach in Jesus' hand. Jesus not only saves us from sin, but without his sacrifice and changing hearts and minds throughout history, He has prevented much evil.  Go ahead and a laugh. Read Loftus' comment below. The real interesting thing is that it is those who reject Christ are the ones who are drowning and they do not want rescue.

This is how God shows that he loves us. We're supposed to believe God expressed his love by sending his son to die for us based on 2nd, 3rd, 4th handed testimony found in manuscripts dated to the 4th century AD from a pre- scientific superstitious people in a remote part of the ancient world, who included forged texts in their holy book that reinforced their hindsight conclusions, who destroyed other texts that disagreed, and who subsequently killed off anyone who didn't accept those beliefs, despite the fact that this same God allows so much intensive ubiquitous gratuitous suffering in the world? Nope, not a chance. Not even close. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Debunking Christianity: Does God Really Show That He Loves Us?

The Secular Outpost: Marcus McElhaney on Austin Dacey’s Debate with WLC

Last night I responded to a post on Debunking Christianity. Jeffery Jay Lowder has written a response. I'm glad he responded because it shows a lot of fundamental problems with atheistic responses and thought processes. I'm going to respond to Lowder. My responses are in red and when he quotes me it will be bolded. One of the main problems with his responses is that he doesn't seem to understand what Christians believes. Christians believe what the Bible says and many of his replies illustrate that Lowder has very little understanding of what Christians are really saying.

Marcus McElhaney responds to a recent blog post at Debunking Christianity which links to a video of Austin Dacey’s debate with William Lane Craig on God’s existence. Since I believe Dacey’s debate with Craig is one of the better debate performances by an atheist, this caught my eye. Here I want to comment on McElhaney’s critique.

I have to say that I disagree that Dacey performed well against William Lane Craig, but Lowder is entitled to his opinion.

Topic: The Argument from Divine Hiddenness

Here is McElhaney:

This thought amazes me! God is not hidden too well if I and so many others have found him.  Just because someone has not found God doesn't mean that God is not able to be found.

Reply: The fact that someone has not found God is logically compatible with God’s existence, but that is not the question. The question is whether reasonable (non-culpable) nonbelief is more probable on the assumption that atheism is true than on the assumption that theism is true.

 There is no reason to assume that atheism is true (or at least no reason is offered) Nonbelief is culpable. The Christian position is that non-culpable unbelief is at all warranted.

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.- Romans 1:18-20

The point of the argument from divine hiddenness (aka the argument from reasonable nonbelief) is notto deny that there are people who believe they have found God. Rather, the whole point of the argument is the fact that there are other people who reasonably do not believe in God.

It's unreasonable to claim that you do not believe in God because you have not found him. It's a subjective argument and worthless because there are people who have found God and therefore reasonably believe in God. The bottom line is that God's existence is not dependent on what you, me, or anyone else thinks about God's existence.

In addition to the general fact of reasonable nonbelief (DH), J.L. Schellenberg has shown that there are other, more specific facts about reasonable nonbelief which are evidence favoring atheism over theism. The numbering/labeling scheme is mine; page numbers are references to Schellenberg’s book, The Wisdom to Doubt.

If God does exist then nonbelief is not reasonable!

DH1. Nonresistant Nonbelievers: Schellenberg describes “nonresistant nonbelievers” in this way: "in the actual world persons who do not believe that there is a God, and that in at least some of these people the absence of theistic belief is not in any way the result of their own emotional or behavioral opposition towards God or relationship with God or any of the apparent implications of such a relationship."

Everyone, by default,  are resistant to God - depraved in attitude and thought. In other words there are no such thing as non-resistant nonbelievers. 

⁵ Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶ The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷ The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. ⁸ Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8

Given that some might not understand Paul's terminology, they should read all of Roman and the rest of Paul's letters but here is a start. A mind governed by the flesh describes a person who has not come in a relationship with God - regardless of if they believe God exists or they do not think God exists. 

¹⁹ You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. - James 2:19

DH2. Former Believers: As Schellenberg points out, such individuals, from the perspective of theism, were on the right path when they lost belief. If theism is true, then such individuals already were in relationship with God and the loss of belief has terminated that.

Apostates were never really believers, so their testimonies are worthless. They were never in real relationship with God.

¹⁹ They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. - 1 John 2:19

DH3. Lifelong Seekers:”"individuals who don't start out in what they consider to be a relationship with God and may not even be explicitly searching for God, but who are trying to find out where they belong and, in their wanderings, are open to finding and being found by a Divine Parent--all without ever achieving their goal. These are individuals who seek but do not find." (233)

The following covers the "lifelong seeker":

⁴³ “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. ⁴⁴ “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. ⁴⁵ It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’^[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. ⁴⁶ No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. ⁴⁷ Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.  - John 6:43-47

If a person has the unction to seek God it didn't come from the person himself/herself but from God. At the same time if that person is chosen by God and drawn by God it is IMPOSSIBLE for that person not to find God. The Old Testament says the same same thing!

²⁸ There you will worship man-made gods of wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or eat or smell. ²⁹ But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find him if you seek him with all your heart and with all your soul. ³⁰ When you are in distress and all these things have happened to you, then in later days you will return to the Lord your God and obey him. - Deuteronomy 4:28-30

If a person is drawn by God of course they are going to go seek after God with all their heart and soul. We fail all the time. God never fails.

DH4. Converts to Nontheistic Religions: individuals who investigate other serious conceptions of the Ultimate and who turn up evidence that produces religious belief in the context of nontheistic religious communities and/or on account of nontheistic religious experiences--and the truth of atheistic claims may be seen to follow by implication. (236)

So atheism is true just because some people go to nontheistic religions? Nope. They are just as wrong as those who come to an atheistic conclusion. 

DH5. Isolated Nontheists: "those who have never been in a position to resist God because they have never so much as had the idea of an all-knowing and all-powerful spiritual being who is separate from a created universe but related to it in love squarely before their minds--individuals who are entirely formed by, and unavoidably live their whole lives within, what must, if God exists, be a fundamentally misleading meaning system" (238).

In addition, Stephen Maitzen has identified other, more specific facts about divine hiddenness (the “demographics of theism”) which also favor atheism over theism.

God sovereignly chooses what position you are exposed to and when and if you respond.We cannot favorably respond to God without God enabling us to do so. 

⁶ It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. ⁷ Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”^{[b] 8} In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. ⁹ For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”^[c]
10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. ¹¹ Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: ¹² not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”^{[d] 13} Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”^[e]
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! ¹⁵ For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
    and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”^[f]

¹⁶ It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. ¹⁷ For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”^{[g] 18} Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

¹⁹ One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” ²⁰ But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”^{[h] 21} Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
²² What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? ²³ What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— ²⁴ even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? - Romans 9:6-24 .
 DH6. The Geographical Distribution of Theistic Belief: The distribution of theistic belief is uneven around the world. Why does the epistemic or moral defectiveness of non-believers vary dramatically with cultural and national boundaries? For example, why is more than 95% of Saudi Arabia Muslim, while Thailand is 95% Buddhist and only 5% theist? Given the widely held assumption that, generically speaking, epistemic and moral defects are evenly distributed among the world's peoples, it is hard to see how that question could be answered.

I guess in Lowder's mind, "theists" means "Christian". The thing to remember is that all people are sinners and fall short of the standard or morals that God has set. I wouldn't expect more than a wide distribution or morals that don't line up to God's ultimate standards.

²¹ But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. ²² This righteousness is given through faith in^[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. ²⁵ God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,^[i] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— ²⁶ he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. - Romans 3:21-26

DH7. The Temporal Distribution of Theistic Belief. Maitzen argues that especially compared to naturalistic explanations, none of the theistic explanations of blameworthy or blameless non-belief accounts for how the global incidence of theistic belief has varied dramatically during the existence of the human species.

William Rowe has identified another, more specific fact about divine hiddenness.

I'd like to know how would Lowder of Maitzen know just how theistic (defined as belief in existence of god(s)) beliefs have varied among human throughout the entire time humanity has existed. There is no way they can know that.

DH8. Divine Hiddenness during Tragedies. Just as loving parents would, say, comfort a child undergoing chemotherapy, we would expect a loving God to comfort human beings who suffer as the result of tragedies. If theism is true, then God loves his creatures and wants all of his creatures to love Him in return. However, many people find it hard to love God when they do not understand the reasons for their suffering and God seems so far away. In other words, even if God has a reason for allowing tragedies, He could still comfort victims of suffering so that they know He loves them. Yet there are many victims of tragedies who report not feeling God's comforting presence.This is not at all what we would expect if theism were true. However, if atheism is true, we would expect victims of tragedies not to experience God's comforting presence for the simple reason that there is no God. Thus, God's silence in the face of tragedies is much more probable on atheism than on theism.

Finally, Paul Draper has classified the history and success of science as an aspect of divine hiddenness.

 This point assumes two things: 1. That God is obligated to love everyone to the same degree and in the same manner. 2. That everyone is one God's children. The Bible does not tell us this. Why would Maitzen come to that conclusion. Where did he get that from? He didn't get it from Biblical Christianity.

DH9. The History and Success of Science. In Draper’s words, “The problem here is not the problem of why, if God exists, she would allow reasonable non-belief, but rather the more fundamental problem of why, if God or other supernatural beings exist, science can completely ignore them and still explain so much." Since this argument is one of Dacey’s arguments, let us turn to McElhaney’s critique now.

I have to reiterate, there is no reason at all to think you can understand the universe by ignoring God. 

Topic: The Evidential Argument from the History of Science

Here is McElhaney:

Logic and mathematics are the key to science. God didn't just create reality he created all the mathematics and logic on which science is based. The pioneers of what we consider modern science know something that has been lost by people who make arguments like this one: studying science is studying God. The more we learn about the universe the more we understand about the one who created it. Why would nature follow discoverable laws? Why is the universe understandable to any degree? The fact that the universe is understandable to a growing degree shows that there must be a mind behind it. The creation isn't mean to tell us everything we need to know about God, but it helps us understand and know God .

Reply: McElhaney’s comments are a textbook example of the fallacy of understated evidence. He is arguing—asserting might be a better word, for he hasn’t actually stated an argument in the above paragraph—that the intelligibility of of the universe is evidence favoring theism over naturalism. For the sake of argument, let’s assume he’s right about that. The fact that the universe is intelligible hardly exhausts what we know about its intelligibility. Given that the universe is intelligible, the fact that so much of our universe is intelligible without any appeal to supernatural agency is much more probable on naturalism than on theism. See here and here.

I'd like Lowder to explain why he thinks the universe is intelligible? If the universe is the product of directionless and purposeless random processes driven by natural selection why would it develop in such a way that is intelligible to the human mind? I see no reason to conclude that naturalism would lead to the expectation of intelligibility.

Topic: The Evidential Argument from Physical Minds

Here is McElhaney:

There is no reason to think that the human mind should be independent of the brain and body.. Yes, the damaging a person's body or brain affects a person's ability to think and interact with the world mentally. Duh! From a Biblical point of view, remember that humanity is not intended by God to exist as disembodied consciousness. A whole human being has a sound mind and body - which is for what Jesus came died for us to have. The expectation that we should be able to scientifically measure and observe the whole of the human person is naive.

Reply: McElhaney’s response indicates he has badly misunderstood Dacey’s argument from physical minds. Contrary to what McElhaney claims, there is good reason “to think that the human mind should be independent of the brain and body” on the assumption that theism is true. Theismentails the existence of at least one unembodied mind, namely, God’s mind. Therefore, theism provides at least some antecedent reason to expect that human minds will be embodied/disembodied. See here.

Just because God is unembodied (and this ignoring Jesus (second part of the Trinity who is embodied)  does not mean that a complete whole human being does not need to be embodied. No where in the Bible does it say that the human mind is independent of the brain or the body. The soul and the spirit are not the same thing and I think it's better to just be honest and say that we don't really know how the mind, body, soul, and spirit are really related to one another only that you need all of it to be complete human being. To claim that there is no soul is simply overreaching and claiming to know something that you can't possibly know.  Just like there are people who have experienced diminished mental faculties and changes in personality with damages to the brain, there are people who have experience brain damaged and not experienced mental or personality changes.  Both are true. Therefore, honestly, you can't say that this is evidence of there not being a soul or anything more than being human than the material aspect of being.

Topic: The Evidential Argument from Evolution

McElhaney:

The thought that evaluating the universe as poorly designed is very stupid. In order to come to that conclusion means that you know what the design criteria and limitations and the final conclusions. We don't. For example:  try coming in off the street and telling an engineer that his/her design is flawed and not knowing nothing about why the engineer made the choices that was made. You'd be an ignoramus.

Reply: The evidential argument from biological evolution doesn’t even need the concept of “poor design.”

Maybe, but that is what Darcy focused on in the video. Let's see if Lowder does any better.

Here’s a brief, informal statement of the argument.

To be sure, biological evolution is logically compatible with theism; God could have used evolution to create life. But if theism were true, God could have also used many other methods to create life, methods which are impossible if naturalism is true. In contrast, if naturalism is true, evolution pretty much has to be true. 

I disagree that macro evolution has to be true, but given that Lowder admits that God could have used evolution to create life, let's agree for the sake of his argument (he needs all the help he can get.)  God can use whatever method God desires to create the universe and put life wherever God desires to put it. Given that evolution does not explain how life actually started on earth, it is problematic for naturalism.

Furthermore, since theism implies a metaphysical dualism, it is antecedently likely on theism that minds are fundamentally nonphysical entities and therefore that conscious life is fundamentally different from nonconscious life. But this in turn makes it likely that conscious life was created independently of nonconscious life--that evolution is false. Thus, the scientific fact of biological evolution is more likely on the assumption that naturalism is true than on the assumption that theism is true. See here.

Given that evolution cannot explain the origin of consciousness, it is a blow against naturalism but not being able to explain where consciousness comes from doesn't mean that human mind and  human soul must be independent of the brain. We don't have enough information explain it one way or the other...yet. 

Topic: The Evidential Argument from Evil

McElhaney:

There is no such thing as pointless suffering. God has given us what we need to eliminate measles and malaria and many other issues, but we choose not to. Why don't we? Greed and power. Could God supernaturally change this so we would not have to do anything about it? Yes. God chooses not to based on His own will and reasons. Not one of us can know all the good that will or has resulted  or the bad that was and will be restrained or avoided. God does not have to explain his reasons to us. And God does tells what we need to know - that is what science and scripture are for. .God does comfort his people when they suffer. For example that is what many people who have experienced terrible pain and suffering have found out firsthand.

Reply:

1. If theism were true, God could prevent tragedies in many different ways, ways that would not take away our free will or our ability to develop moral character.

Yes. Who says that God does not? It's not mutually exclusive. God prevents and allows tragedies.  I still wanna know who told Lowder that we have free will or we have any moral character at all apart from God. Of course an atheist can act morally, but only because God gives him grace to do so.

2. As Draper has argued, proponents of the Free Will Defense (like McElhaney) “neglect to ask whether or not humans are worthy of the freedom* to seriously harm others. A good parent gradually increases a child's responsibility as the child becomes capable of handling greater responsibility. Children who are unworthy of a certain responsibility are not benefitted by parents who give them that responsibility.” On the assumption that theism is true, “one would expect God to give all or some humans less responsibility and in particular no ability to do serious evils-until they freely* developed the strength of character that would make them worthy of greater responsibility.” The fact that human freedom is not scaled according to strength of character is much more probable on the assumption that atheism is true than on the assumption that theism is true.

I think this shows more than anything else just how much Lowder does not understand what I am saying. Given that we are all sinner and deserving of hell, any worthiness we may have of some level of responsibility comes from God himself..God can choose to impart that strength of character in any way that God chooses. Human freedom is scaled no according human ability but according to God's will. And God does add more responsibility as our abilities to handle them grows and increases. 

3. Of course, it's logically possible that God has a reason for allowing tragedies, a reason we humans do not understand. But it's also logically possible that God has extra reasons for preventing tragedies, reasons we also do not understand. We have no antecedent reason to believe that, if God exists, God’s unknown reasons for allowing tragedies outweigh God’s unknown reasons for preventing tragedies.

I'd like to know why Lowder would think that God does not prevent some tragedies for reasons that we also do not understand. Why would Lowder think that God does not stop or restrict more tragedies or evils that God allows? I see no reason at all to make that assumption. 

4. Finally, as we saw earlier, there are many victims of tragedies who report not feeling God’s comforting presence.

There are also many victims of tragedies who report feeling God's comforting presence. I know I have. The fact that some people don't feel God's comforting presence might be explained by their not believing in God in the first place.

² Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters,^[a] whenever you face trials of many kinds, ³ because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. ⁴ Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. ⁵ If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. ⁶ But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. ⁷ That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. ⁸ Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do. - James 1:2-8

The Secular Outpost: Marcus McElhaney on Austin Dacey’s Debate with WLC

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Two Scenarios From Dr. Matt McCormick and His Conclusions

John Loftus posted an article from Dr Matt McCormick's blog where Dr McCormick discusses the implications on atheism and agnosticism  from the Divine Arguments argument. Loftus quotes the following.

Scenario A: God isn’t real and we fail to find good evidence for supernatural beings.

Belief in situation A: irrational.
Agnosticism in situation A: irrational.
Disbelief in situation A: reasonable/rational.

Scenario B: God is Real, but Hiding.

Belief in situation B: irrational.
Agnosticism in situation B: not an epistemically responsible position.
Disbelief in situation B: reasonable/rational. Enjoy.

McCormick's whole argument is assuming that the Hiddeness of God is something that given weight falls and leads to atheism. There are many formulations for the idea but let's stick to McCormicks and examine if this philosophical idea holds any weight.

I’ve been thinking about the arguments for atheism from divine hiddenness.  Here’s a way to argue for atheism in that vein with some similarities to Drange and Schellenberg and with several improvements on the argument of my own. 

I've often thought about "divine hiddenness" and I don't think it squares with the Bible or observation. 

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. - Romans 1:18-20

The Bible does not tell us that God is hidden in the slightest. In fact it tells us the opposite. The idea of hiddenness comes from people who like to think they have an excuse for why they don't experience God the way they think they should if God exists. This thinking is backward. God reveals Himself to us on His terms not ours. 

²⁴ “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. ²⁵ And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. ²⁶ From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. ²⁷ God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. - Acts 17:24-27

Add this one.

⁵ By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.”^[a] For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. ⁶ And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. - Hebrews 11:5,6
 

We need to be like Enoch and remember that God is not hiding from us. We hide from Him.

Imagine two scenarios, both where it would appear that God is hiding. 

Scenario A:  God isn’t real and we fail to find good evidence for supernatural beings.

Suppose that beings humans find themselves in this situation: 

There is no supernatural being of any sort.

Furthermore,  

 a.  there are no empirical indications of a supernatural beings

No proof of that. We have creation,

b.    none of the conceptual arguments for supernatural beings are compelling

 Says him

c.    we have made substantial efforts to uncover supernatural beings. 

Like what? How about seeking God with a whole heart?

d.    none of our attempts to discover supernatural beings have succeeded

What are they?

e.    the available evidence concerning supernatural beings are inadequate.

So he admits that there is some available evidence but how does he know it is inadequate?

f.     there is a presumption that supernatural beings are the sort of entity that, if one were to exist, then it would manifest in some fashion that is detectable by beings with our cognitive faculties. 

This is a presupposition that God has not revealed Himself that is detectable to us. Not true.

g.    the presumption that supernatural beings would manifest in some way has not been defeated.

Yes it has because that is what God has done. 

h.    naturalized models of supernatural belief formation are well justified by the evidence and they provide a better alternative account of the origins of supernatural beliefs.   

I wouldn't agree to that all. Asserting it does not make it true. 

Question:  What is the reasonable conclusion to draw about supernatural beings in this situation? 

Would non-belief be epistemically inculpable in this situation?  That is, if humans  conclude that there are no supernatural beings, would that conclusion be unwarranted?  

What about believing in a supernatural being?  And would being an agnostic be epistemically culpable or inculpable in this situation? 

It seems to me for a number of reasons that disbelief in supernatural beings would be justified.  Disbelief would not be epistemically culpable.  Furthermore, believing in a supernatural being in this situation would be epistemically culpable and irrational.  I even think that being agnostic in this situation, particularly given the point in h., would be unreasonable/culpable.  

That is:

Belief in situation A:  irrational. 

Agnosticism in situation A:  irrational. 

Disbelief in situation A:  reasonable/rational.  

If McCormick's assumptions were true then I would agree with his conclusions. Unfortunately they are not and we have no reason to accept them. 

Scenario B:  God is Real, but Hiding

Suppose that humans find themselves in this situation: 

God exists and possesses the power and the knowledge to make himself known to humans. 

Yet for reasons unknown to humans, God insures that: 

a.    there are no empirical indications of God

False

b.    none of the conceptual arguments for God is compelling

That is true about all the concepts outside the Bible.

 

c.    we have made substantial efforts to uncover God,  

“And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every desire and every thought. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever. - 1 Chronicles 28:9

Just follow the command Solomon got. 

d.    none of our attempts to discover God have succeeded

Maybe none of his, but there are a lot of people would beg to differ. 

e.    the available evidence concerning God is inadequate. 

The more we learn in science and technology the more we find  evidence concerning God.  

f.     there is a presumption that God is the sort of entity that, if God were to exist, then God would manifest in some fashion that is detectable by beings with our cognitive faculties.  

And God does exactly that. 

g.    the presumption that supernatural beings/God would manifest in some way has not been defeated.

The fact that there is a universe rather than nothing defeats the idea that there is no God. 

h.    naturalized models of supernatural belief formation are well justified by the evidence and they provide a better alternative account of the origins of supernatural beliefs.    

Naturalized models are not justified or explain all of our observations better than God's revelation of Himself. 

Question:  What is the reasonable conclusion to draw about supernatural beings in this situation? 

Would disbelief be epistemically inculpable in this situation?  That is, if humans  conclude that there are no supernatural beings, would that conclusion be unwarranted? [yes] Notice that the evidential situation for humans is exactly the same in both scenarios. [No it isn't, because God has revealed Himself]  So the answers to our questions about what is the reasonable conclusion to draw must be the same, with some interesting side notes. [Only if make the same mistaken analysis]  Ironically, despite the fact that God is real in this situation, it seems to me that disbelief, given the evidential situation would be justified.  That is, the atheist in the world where God is real but hiding, would have a well-justified but false belief. [God is not hiding.] We couldn’t find epistemic fault with the conclusion that this atheist has drawn.  The apocryphal story about Bertrand Russell is relevant.  After a lecture about atheism, a member of the audience asked him, “Prof. Russell, what are you going to do after you die and then in the afterlife you show up at the Pearly Gates and God and Saint Peter are all there and it’s obvious how wrong you are?”  Allegedly without missing a step, Russell said he’d say to God, “Not enough evidence, God!  Not enough evidence!” 

Only thing is Russell would never be able to say that because standing before God he would have to admit that claiming a lack of evidence would be a lie.  And don't forget that Russell has indeed gone on and I can't imagine that this excuse worked.  It won't work for anyone.

Furthermore, if someone were to believe in God in this situation, it would be irrational and unjustified.  Ironically, she would happen to get it right.  That is, she’d have  a true belief.  But her evidence did not justify her conclusion.  Her belief would have all the virtue of thievery over honest toil, to quote Russell again.  She’d be like a psychic who accidentally predicted the winning lottery numbers.  Her getting the numbers right by accident doesn’t vindicate her method or improve the reliability of her method of derivation.  

One one hand this is something one would want to be right about and wouldn't care if they were right for the wrong reason.  God has not really left this option open for us because God has plainly revealed himself to us. We are not left without evidence or witnesses. Therefore if you are wrong about God's existence you have no excuse.

Furthermore, if agnosticism was unreasonable and unjustified in scenario A, it would be here too.  That is, the agnostic who suspends judgment in scenario B, where a-h are also true, would be unjustified.  

Agreed. 

The interesting question here concerns the reasonable limits to agnosticism.  Under what circumstances should one be an agnostic.  It seems to me that a-h, if they are true, are enough to warrant moving from agnostic to atheism.  Some other examples are suggestive:  Suppose we insert Bigfoot or Leprechauns into scenario A. 

Suppose there are no Leprechauns.  And suppose further that we have searched diligently, no compelling evidence in their favor has been found, Leprechauns are the sorts of things that would be revealed in some way to our cognitive faculties if we were to search and encounter them, and furthermore, we have other natural explanations of why people have believed in Leprechauns.  In that situation, you should not be agnostic.  Being agnostic would be irrational.  

If you search for God with your whole heart you will find God and God will not cast you out or ignore you. So being an atheist or agnostic is irrational. 

Many agnostics have the view that God is not like Leprechauns, so there is a disanalogy here.  God is unlike Leprechauns in ways that require us to be agnostic about him, but atheist about the Leprechauns.  I think there could be a plausible argument here, but I’m not sure.  The central issue for these agnostics, I think, would be to deny that condition g. has been met in the case of God.  There are good reasons to think that the presumption about God’s manifesting to our cognitive faculties in h. is defeated in the case of God but not in the case of Leprechauns.  

 God does condescend to us to have a relationship with God so the presumption is flawed.

The really interesting question to me right now is, what are those reasons that defeat the presumption?  Why should we think that God is not the sort of thing that would be manifest to our cognitive faculties in any of the relevant ways? 

 Because God does come to us. We can't go to him on our own. In short that is what the incarnation is all about and why all of history hinges on Jesus.

 Pretty clearly, on lots of theistic hypotheses, God is the sort of thing whose existence or non-existence makes some manifest difference in the world.  The world or the arguments, would look different if there were no God in some way that we could discern.  The existence of gods of that sort is undermined by this argument.  But if there were a supernatural being whose presence or absence would not be manifest to our cognitive faculties, then our not finding any manifestations would not be adequate grounds to conclude that no such being exists. 

I'd like to see some proof that God has not interacted with us in a way our cognitive faculties can recognize Him,  

This agnostic might argue for this thesis:  There may yet be some sort of supernatural being that we can have no cognitive access to and that we can form no positive thesis about.  We should be agnostic about that being because the absence of evidence for it isn’t indicative either way about its existence.  

Does not fly. God has not left that open to us. 

My question here is this:  What exactly are we being agnostic about in this case?  Which hypothesis am I suspending judgment about?  Is it this:  there may yet be some truths about which I can form no idea, I can have no comprehension, and that elude my cognitive faculties altogether.  

Agreed. But that does not describe the God of the Bible. 

It doesn’t seem to me that suspending judgment is the right way to describe the attitude we should take about those proposals.  We should suspend judgment, it seems to me, about whether there are extra terrestrial forms of life in our universe.  That is a clear proposal about which our evidence is split or about which we do not have enough evidence yet to draw a conclusion.  The mercurial transcendental entity that the agnostic proposes is utterly unlike alien life.  We have no access, and we can have no access, perhaps in principle, to such an entity.  It would seem that we cannot hope to form any sort of propositional attitude at all about it, not even enough to suspend judgment about it. Furthermore, it is relevant to point out that this agnostic is taking a conservative attitude about the possibility of something that is utterly unlike any of the divine beings that are typically proposed or believed in.  This agnostic seems to have tacitly agreed that in situation A or B, the only reasonable conclusion is to be atheist, not agnostic, about the overwhelming majority of the gods that humans have believed in.  This agnostic is a very wide atheist, but not quite as wide as the widest atheist.  It just not clear to me that suspending judgment in this case even makes sense or is the epistemically responsible position. 

Options A and B are flawed. But McCormick is correct that suspending judgement is not open to us either - not if you want to be both truthful and rational. So if hiddenness is off the table, how do we understand why some people seem to have no access to God? They don't hear Him and they experience Him? Why? Simple. The Bible gives us the answer.

¹⁹ This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. ²⁰ Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. ²¹ But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God. - John 3:19-21

Debunking Christianity: Two Scenarios From Dr. Matt McCormick and His Conclusions