The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists #6

John Loftus has posted a link to a  list of questions for theists from another blog. Rather than answer all of them in a single post, I will take each of them one at a time. Today:


6.   If you believe the universe is fine-tuned for intelligent life, why isn't our universe teeming with life, including life much more impressive than human life?


Just because we don't see life we recognize in every nook and cranny of the observable universe, doesn't mean that life isn't fine-tuned. Why hasn't it occurred to those who ask questions like this that God's purpose is for life to be exactly and only where it is now found? Also how do we know that if we can exist if all the uninhabitable locations in the universe are not necessary for our own survival on earth? That itself could be an example of fine-tuning and we just don't know enough to be able to tell it yet.

This is definitely how Paul looked at it.

²⁴ God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

²⁵ Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

²⁶ And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

²⁷ That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

²⁸ For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. - Acts 17:24-28

If God would determine the places and times for everyone and everything on earth, how much for the rest of the universe? Of course He's free to make the universe anyway He sees fit  and we don't know all about the design criteria God aimed for. 

The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Divine Knowledge--Or the Lack Thereof

Cathy Cooper has again taken to the Debunking Christianity blog and shows us what failed arguments look like. This time the argument is trying to disprove Christianity by trying to show that God is not omniscient. Obviously, she desires to make this stick because if Christians are wrong about God being omniscient then why should anything we say about God be believed? Fortunately for all of us she is wrong.

This is a brief excerpt from our book that is almost completed.  It relates to my past post on Yahweh, and how this anthropomorphized god is further illustrated to be quite ignorant.

Another assertion. Let's see if she can back it up.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge, and epistemologically speaking, knowledge is gained by asking the following questions: What is it? How do we find knowledge? How do we know?

This is actually a good place to start. Is she right? Is this the only way gain knowledge? No it isn't. There is also revelation. There is somethings you only know because someone told you - revealed it to you.  As a matter of fact it is how most of what you hold you know. For example, how do you know what your name is? And how did you get it? Did you go to the hospital you were born in? Did you interrogate your family? How about the identity of your grandparents? Obviously, for most of us, someone you trust told you. Thing is was it true? That is the question. This the lie that Eve and Adam fell for in Eden. The serpent asked “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’? ” The question under discussion is "Does God really know everything?" And like the question in the garden, it's a twisting on what God actually said and and calling God's trustworthiness into question as if God is trying to hide something from us.  God isn't deceiving us.


To find knowledge, humans use reason, critical thinking, and experience, which is perceived through what JS Mill posited as a "Permanent Possibility of Sensations."* How we gain this knowledge can vary, but the best way of finding knowledge pragmatically speaking, is through the Hypothethico-Deductive method. The H-D method of inquiry begins by formulating a hypothesis which could possibly be falsified by testing, which is both verifiable and reproducible. This is one of the most reliable methods of gaining knowledge; that is, of course, in the context of finite mortality.

Considering that there are things you can't test repeatedly, does that mean that you can't know anything about those things? For example, when you tell a child not to stare into the sun, should they test that out repeated to see if indeed that will turn blind? I really hope that no one would suggest that this is the only way to learn new knowledge.

But what is Divine Knowledge--the omniscience of God? It becomes paradoxical when the god of the Bible is assumed to be perfect in his knowledge, and at the same time, exhibits a lack of knowledge. In Genesis 18 for example, Yahweh illustrates his lack of knowledge when the Bible stated he needed to go to Sodom in order to confirm what he had heard was going on there:

"...I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me."Genesis 18:21

Cooper suggests that God goes down to Sodom because God does not know what is going down there. Does that make sense? No it does not. 

The Hebrew helps here a lot and it does not take much skill or research to see that the Hebrew וְאֶרְאֶה translated by "see" carries with it no indication of  ignorance. Look it up here for Genesis 18. And Crosswalk.com helps shed the light on this. 

 to see, look at, inspect, perceive, consider

1. (Qal)
   1. to see
   2. to see, perceive
   3. to see, have vision
   4. to look at, see, regard, look after, see after, learn about, observe, watch, look upon, look out, find out
   5. to see, observe, consider, look at, give attention to, discern, distinguish
   6. to look at, gaze at

Yahweh's lack of knowledge also causes him to question others. Also in Genesis 18, Yahweh questions Abraham about whether or not Sarah had laughed when she was told by Yahweh that she would bear a child in her old age. The added question, and the silence of Abraham to Yahweh's question, led to the subsequent lie Sarah told Yahweh about her not laughing. This illustrates that Yahweh does not know everything, and the "father and mother of all nations" (Abraham and Sarah) also cannot be trusted, as they were cowardly liars.

The text does not read that way at all. As a parent,  one tactic is to ask children a question about what they did to make them think and give them the opportunity to come clean and take responsibility for the error. My parents did the same thing to me. IT WORKS. God was doing the same thing for Abraham and Sarah. Here we don't see the ignorance of God. We see God's wisdom and mercy. God was going to give Abraham and Sarah a family despite their elderly age and their ability to believe His promises. Sarah doubted she could ever have a child from her own body. Of course God did not just let Sarah get away with lying but she wasn't punished either. Calling her and Abraham cowards is not just unfair but hilarious considering the source.

Furthermore, there was no point in the "Lord" asking for advice from his companions in the following passages:

"When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.” Genesis 18:16-19

Yahweh visited Abraham and Sarah in human form on earth in time. The men who accompanied Him were angels who were sent on to Sodom. When God spoke by the time of verse 16, they were already on the way to Sodom. God had already decided what He was going to do.  God wasn't asking Abraham, as an equal what He was going to do, but asking if He would let Abraham know. This isn't God asking for advice.

In fact, these passages illustrates a god who is not omniscient at all as he obviously was not fully aware of what was happening in Sodom.

It doesn't say that. 

Many Christians like to claim that Yahweh asks questions as a method of helping us to learn certain things, but there is nothing we can learn from Yahweh asking his companions whether or not he should hide his plans from Abraham. What it does do however, is cause us mere mortals to question how Yahweh can have "perfect knowledge" when he himself questions others, and admits he does not know everything.

How did God admit that He does not know everything. If God was looking for counsel about Abraham, why would God do so while Abraham was standing right there? If Abraham did not think God was omniscient and could deliver on those promises, why did he believe God? Simple: God showed him that God could be trusted and believed. We see nothing here showing that  God isn't worthy of the same trust from us.

Some theologians assert that his "companions" in this case were the other members of the Holy Trinity, and he was consulting with them, (himself?) but this would be impossible, as the Jews who wrote this text do not believe in Jesus as God, and never have. Therefore, this conclusion would be illogical and inconsistent with the Jewish texts.

I don't see any reason to assert that the other two men with God were the Holy Trinity. I got to admit that Cooper shows zero understanding about what the Trinity is. In no part of the Old Testament or New Testament do we find the Father or the Holy Spirit become incarnate - only the Son. And from a Jewish context, we wouldn't even think Moses had in mind to teach that the three was Trinity. There are other texts much better suited to show the Trinity in the Old Testament. However the text is great for illustrating the incarnation. This video will help you.




It should also be noted that Yahweh chose Abraham because his "knowledge" told him that Abraham and his children would keep the "way of the Lord" (Gen. 18:19), i.e., the "laws of Yahweh." This is clearly has not been the case however, as Yahweh's laws have been virtually wiped out by the believers in Yahweh and his son Jesus, which would mean that either Yahweh did not know Abraham's descendents would reject his laws, or Yahweh lied.

No and No. God did  not choose Abraham for anything special about him. Abraham was not picked because he would teach the next generations but so that he would direct them. Second, God did not say that Abraham's descendants would follow God's laws. God said that Abraham would teach them and pass them down. Cooper is also being silly to think God was talking about the Mosaic laws - that was over 400 years later! Abraham was chosen to start a chosen nation.

¹⁴ To the Lord your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it. ¹⁵ Yet the Lord set his affection on your ancestors and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations—as it is today. ¹⁶ Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer. - Deuteronomy 10:14-15


⁷ The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. ⁸ But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. ⁹ Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments. - Deuteronomy 7:7-9

Furthermore, if it were the case that Yahweh knew his laws would not stand up to scrutiny, why did he give them to his followers in the first place, knowing he would eventually send himself/his son to die a horrible death in order to revoke them? Where is the "Divine Knowledge" of Yahweh, when his knowledge (laws) have been cast aside by Christians? This is quite a conundrum.

The laws have not been revoked or cast aside. They have been fulfilled in Christ.  

¹⁶ The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,”^[a] meaning one person, who is Christ. ¹⁷ What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. ¹⁸ For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. - Galatians 3:16-18


Without knowledge there can be no wisdom, and without understanding, there is nothing at all. Yahweh is, to his own followers, "beyond their understanding" (Job 36:26) [and everyone's understanding] and therefore, he is, according to this belief, unable to even pass his knowledge to them. Instead, we have men who speak in his name. Men, who use Yahweh as a catalyst to manifest their own agendas to the demise of actual knowledge--not to its gain.

*Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind, Volume 1,James Mill, John Stuart Mill, Alexander Bain, p. 446

_______________________

Cathy Cooper

Not true at all. God can and does pass His knowledge to those who trust in Him. No one has any excuse for not knowing God's laws. It's readily available. You can know what God's standard of holiness is. If you don't know, you can ask Him - and you will not stay the same. 

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. - James 1:5

If one is going to try to discredit the Bible, you should make sure to get the scripture correct.

Debunking Christianity: Divine Knowledge--Or the Lack Thereof

Helen McCarthy Delivers A Comprehensive Crash Course In Manga History - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Helen McCarthy Delivers A Comprehensive Crash Course In Manga History - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Walmart Rolls Out The Red Carpet For The Amazing Spider-Man™ Fans Nationwide

I tried out the new Augmented Reality(AR) app for promoting the Amazing Spider-Man movie at Walmart. It's like the Avengers' Superhero AR app that came out last April in conjunction with that movie. This app was designed by the same company that did that Avengers app and although it shares some similarities it's also different. One difference is that when you use the AR photos, Spider-Man is not in a pose where it's simple to take a picture with him. The poses are more action-oriented and now there is interaction in that Spider-Man speaks to you when you click on him.  I think there are four pictures that give you this experience. There is also a comic book you can buy from Walmart that gives a short battle sequence of Spider-Man fighting the Lizard. And there is a promise for a Spider-Man themed truck that will come to various Walmart locations and give people a chance to test out the new console video game and other goodies associated with the film. If you point the app at the truck you get to see another AR scene. I haven't seen it yet.

The app does give you access to see which Walmarts the truck(s) will visit. There are few compared to the total number of Walmarts in my area: one or two compared to the seven that are within a 30 mile radius of my residence. I notice that not all of the Walmarts are also taking part in the promotion. For example not all of them have the AR posters at all. The Walmart closest to my residence doesn't even have the AR posters. It reminds me of how I never did find a Walmart in my area that  had the Black Widow character poster during the Avengers promotion. I'd like to know more about how the Walmart handles these things. It's almost like if the local managers don't care, we miss out on whatever corporate is doing...or corporate doesn't care about certain neighborhoods. I wonder which it is.

Oh...well, here are some of the AR Pictures I shot.

The game in this case, is the option to go around the store and build a webshooter starting June 26th. If you try to do it now, you get an AR of first-person Spider-Man arms that shoots wads of webbing wherever you want.  Again, it is available for Android and iOS.

Walmart Rolls Out The Red Carpet For The Amazing Spider-Man™ Fans Nationwide

Spider-Man's Web-Slinger - Google Play

Spider-Man's Web-Slinger - iTunes

The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists #4 and 5

John Loftus has posted a link to a  list of questions for theists from another blog. Rather than answer all of them in a single post, I will take each of them one at a time. Today:

4. Why is the physical universe so unimaginably large?
 
I responded to this one already before the renumbering here at http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2012/06/answering-secular-outpost-20-questions.html

5. If you believe that visual beauty is evidence of God, why isn't the universe saturated with auditory, tactile, or other non-visual types of sensory beauty?

Who says that there are no auditory, tactile, or other types of non-visual types of sensory beauty? I wouldn't accepts that premise in the slightest. It does not make sense to think that visual beauty is the only evidence of God. If you are listening, you can hear God. You can feel God. This is what God revealing God's self means.


The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists

Know Your Vampire Hunters [CHART]

[Source: roflrazzi / Via The Daily What]

Blade all the way!

Know Your Vampire Hunters [CHART]

Open Letter (Secular Prayer) to the Universe - YouTube

It never ceases to amaze me when Christians erroneously argue that atheism and/or secular worldview stunts a human being's ability to be awed about the awesomeness and wonder and beauty of the universe. The Bible does not say that. It tells us that such an ability makes us accountable when we don't worship and serve God who made it all and us. This is why when I see such a video as below or hear people like Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson talk about the universe in such an eloquent way it really make me think "Oh Convert Already!"




As you can see in the video, much of what is being attributed to the universe is attributed to God by Christianity. It might as well be praying to a god. The universe is described using anthropomorphic terms and almost described as having a will. We, as human beings are even chided for having the audacity to complain about what it does and what it is. While at the same time people who would agree with this video would throw out the idea that we have no right to complain against God. Such statements stop barely short of ascribing personhood to the universe. I realize that some would counter that all of this is just symbolic language and in no way would those who do this think it's okay to worship the universe. But isn't that the problem. If one recognizes one greater than the universe who created and controls it - they are logically obligated to worship and obey the one who did it. As a person who studies the created order to understand how it is not how we want it to be, should we do no less when we approach God? If the universe owes you nothing, then God owes you less. The universe isn't a live organism. It contains living things. God can and does whatever God wants to do, when God wants to do it. Thankfully, God has decided to make himself known in many various ways at many various times. How dare we say to God God should reveal God's self to us on our terms and then complain that we can't understand God?

 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 

We inevitably end up worshiping something. If you are not going to Worship the true and living God you will be worshiping the creation, an idol, or worse yourself.

 Open Letter to the Universe - YouTube

Printing the Human Body: How it Works and Where it’s Headed

Printing the Human Body: How it Works and Where it’s Headed

The Universe Top To Bottom: The Scale of Our Solar System [infographic] | Daily Infographic

The Universe Top To Bottom: The Scale of Our Solar System [infographic] | Daily Infographic

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: The Confusing and Contradictory Doctrines of Christian Salvation

I really have to wonder who is it that told Harry McCall that he understood what Christians believe.  He doesn't understand what the Bible says. If one is going to call the Bible wrong, then at least get what you reject correct.

Anytime someone is presented salvation in Jesus Christ it is assumed they know and understand the Hebrew sacrificial system that has been modified to (again) accept human sacrifice. (1 ) Other than that, the idea of a person giving their life for you is nothing short of an universal emotional “sob story”.
Here are some major problems with any doctrine of Christian Salvation:


McCall makes a lot of assertions but does nothing to back it up. Let us look at all the places where he goes wrong and see if we can help him out.

A. One MUST believe in Jesus Christ and his atoning resurrection to get to Heaven, yet belief in Hell is not required for (according to the Bible (Jesus himself)) most people to go there!



Several problems from the get go. Who said that to be a Christian you don't have to believe in Hell? If you reject the reality of hell, you reject what Jesus said so therefore you should just go the whole way and forget calling yourself "Christian".

B. In religion, belief gives existence in things not seen or provable. In contrast, the Periodical Table of Elements does not require belief for it to exist. On need not believe that CO2 with extinguish fires for it to work.

Faith and belief have nothing to do with making something real. Something that is real and exists is true regardless of what anyone of us thinks about it. True Faith doesn't take the place of reality but an aid in apprehending it. Yes, let's take the periodic table as an example. Given that some elements were discovered out of order (elements with more protons than others)  and placed in the table that by faith the missing elements would be found later. And I mean "faith" in the way the Bible used it. Scientists were certain of those elements' existence although they could not see them. Some of those pioneering scientists died before those theorized elements were actually observed.

C. For Evangelicals, Jesus gives no plan of salvation in the Synoptic Gospels and almost nothing in the late Gospel of John. Need proof? Simply pick up and read some Gospel Tracts you fine are the ATM.) One good reason is that Jesus hated gentiles.



Jesus did not hate gentiles. McCall attempted to prove that in an earlier post and failed, but instead let's look at the more stupid claim that Jesus did not explain how he was going to take away sin in the Synoptic Gospels.

²¹ From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.  - Matthew 16:21


Funny. Sounds like Jesus telling the disciples the plan for salvation of mankind. Go Figure! Gee, makes me wonder if McCall ever actually read the Bible.

D. By contrast, the Apostle Paul - who NEVER saw nor heard the earthly Jesus - can be made to present a plan of salvation via the cut and paste method from his letters where the Jewish sacrificial system is a given fact to be forced on the gentile world view so they maybe “grafted in” (Romans 11: 17 – 24).


Sure would like to have seen McCall actually present proof and not an emotional assertion. Oh well.

E. Paul’s idea of salvation are created and modified over his life time for ma simple paruosia in 1 Thessalonians to a fuller doctrine in his last book, Romans that Evangelicals can use to get a complete dogma of salvation: The Roman’s Road of Salvation.


Where is the proof that the doctrine Paul preached changed over the course of his life and that it differed from the Apostles who were with Jesus or with Jesus' teachings themselves?  Anyone else here crickets?

F. Since a Doctrine of Salvation can only be created from the Bible through a cut and paste method, the Bible only sects can’t agree on just what you need to believe to get to Heaven. For example, Southern Baptist vs. Jehovah Witnesses vs. Christadelphians vs. Seventh Day Adventists and so on.

Jehovah Witnesses are not Christians so comparing their soteriology with the theology found in Bible believing churches is really disingenuous, but not beneath atheists like McCall. As for Southern Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists, McCall does not really seem to know what they believe if he thinks their teachings can be set against one another. 

G. To avoid the problems of a Bible only Doctrine of Salvation (soteriology), high order churches either accept the Creeds or have a Confession of faith. The reality of both the early creeds (Nicene, Apostle’s and son on) or a Confession of Faith (the Catechisms, Westminster Confession of Faith and son on) is that all of these Christian statements of belief were NOT objectively written with just the idea of salvation in mind, but each section of these statements were written to defend orthodoxy against heresy and against heterodoxy. All three of these terms are subjectively defined base on with sect you are a member of. Thus, Catholics define all other sects (denominations) as heretical while all other sects define Catholics as heretical as well as each other. So who is a Christian heretic? Anyone who doesn’t believe like me!.


McCall offers no proof that the early creeds conflict with one another or the Bible. Second, nowadays the official Roman Catholic position is that all Christians, Jews, and Muslims are going to heaven and even a more universalist approach has been adopted. Look up the changes made in the 1960s.

H. Among Protestant groups, more confusion exist as to salvation in that there is no “assurance of salvation”. Even long time believers are left “whistling in the graveyard” of life as they repeatedly go to Mass,....

Protestants don't go to Mass.

....get revived at Revivals, take Communion, confess sins, speak in tongues, make pilgrimages, try to be more Biblical, try to be more Confessional, try to do more good works, try to have more faith alone, try to be more Christ like, try to argue the correct hermeneutical approach to Salvation as doctrinally expressed in Calvinism or Arminianism.


Ah, yes. The old Christians-Can't-Agree-On-Somethings-so-they-all-must-be-wrong argument. Really? Is that the best you got? Why can't atheism be rejected because atheists can't come agreement about many things? Oh I realize what one would say. "Atheists all agree that there is no god." I would counter argue that it depends on how you define "atheism", but be that as it may I think a better rejoinder is that a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus - God made flesh - was really a person, died in their place for their sin as our propitiation and rose again the third day for our justification. Rejecting that means you are not a Christian.

I. As Christians go from door to do evangelizing (most notably Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons) and Fundamentalist go as missionaries to the Philippines and Mexico to convert Catholics and to the former Soviet Union to convert Orthodox, we find that likely over 90% of Christian evangelizing amounts to nothing more that Christians converting Christians to Christianity!


Again, Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are not Christians. Also what is the point McCall trying to make. Given what Jesus said, it is what I'd expect.

⁹ “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. ¹⁰ At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, ¹¹ and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. ¹² Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, ¹³ but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. ¹⁴ And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. - Matthew 24:9-14

Conclusion
There IS NO so-called “Plan of Salvation” in the Bible! Reality proves that Jesus of the Gospels doesn’t agree with the Peter in the Books of Acts which doesn’t agree with Paul who doesn’t agree with James who fails to agree with a highly Jewish book like Revelation. What we are simply left with a man’s attempt to formulate something major from the Bible to make it useful.

 McCall will have to do better than pure baseless assertion to demonstrate that. 

Thus, we the irony in that while Christian humanity has labeled itself totally corrupt and sinful (Original Sin), it must make sense of the hundreds of Doctrines of Salvations it imposes on itself starting with the very Canon it created and requires itself to believe in.




What "hundreds of Doctrines"? Asserting it doesn't make it so. 

Sadly for any sincere Christian believer, to have chosen the wrong doctrinal path to Heaven can put him or her on a toboggan race straight to Hell along with hall the atheists them had condemned.
Note
1. King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities, by Francesca Stavrakopoulou (Walter De Gruyter, 2004).
Harry McCall 

I think that McCall has completely failed to show any confusion or contradiction about what the Bible teaches about how to be reconciled to God despite our sin. The atheist is hell bound because he/she rejects the propitiation that God has provided for us although he/she had an opportunity to be saved. As for other people: If you make it a point to follow God and obey and believe in what God has provided you can't be lost. It isn't about your denomination, culture, or doctrine. It is about just coming to God on God's terms not your own.

Debunking Christianity: The Confusing and Contradictory Doctrines of Christian Salvation

The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists #3 and updated 1 and 2

John Loftus has posted a link to a  list of questions for theists from another blog. Rather than answer all of them in a single post, I will take each of them one at a time. Today:


3. Why is so much of our universe intelligible without any appeal to supernatural agency?

The reason why so much of our universe is intelligible is because it has been designed to be that way.  I would argue that much of the universe is not easily discernible. The more we understand the more questions we have. I'd argue the fact that assumption that the universe is intelligible automatically assumes a purpose and a design. IF there wasn't there wouldn't be any reason to study the universe to try to make sense of it.

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. - Romans 1:18-23

I'm re-doing numbers one and two because the original blog post was updated. Not much of an improvement but we'll discuss them anyway.

1. The question "Why is there something rather than nothing" presupposes "nothing" as being  the normal state of affairs. Why believe that? Why can't we flip the question on its head? In other words, why can't it be the case that the normal state of affairs is for things to actually exist and nothingness itself would be weird?  (HT: Thy Kingdom Come (Undone))

Non-question. It still doesn't answer the question as to where the universe came from and why? Inverting the question doesn't help in the slightest. What we know is that all the evidence points to the universe having a finite beginning. The other issue is that we know left to itself nothing brings about its own existence.


2. Given that the universe has a finite age, why did the universe begin with time rather than in time?

As near as anyone can tell in Physics, talking about time as separate from the universe is not only silly but just wrong. When the universe came into existence (ie created) - matter, time, and energy, all that there is (as far as we can tell) came into existence all at once. 


The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists

The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists #2

John Loftus has posted a link to a  list of questions for theists from another blog. Rather than answer all of them in a single post, I will take each of them one at a time. Today:

Why would God desire to create embodied moral agents, as opposed to disembodied minds (such as souls, spirits, or ghosts)? Why is the human mind dependent on the physical brain?

These questions contradict one another. If mind is dependent on a physical brain than there can be no souls, spirits, or ghosts (there are no ghosts from a Biblical worldview). The second question assumes that the first can't be answered because it assumes that there are no disembodied minds. There is no conclusive proof of that because there is no real way to experiment to find out what happens to a human mind after death. Also from a Biblical worldview, there is no reason to conflate mind and spirit. The Bible discusses mind, spirit, and soul as separate categories. The other thing is that God did create minds, souls, and spirits as well as  "embodied moral agents" so the question doesn't make sense. The question also presupposes the existence of minds, souls, and spirits. These questions are ill posed and pointless to answer. If anyone would care to rephrase it, I'd be happy to further discuss it.


²⁷ Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, ²⁸ so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.- Hebrews 9:27,28

The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists

James White Responds to "14 Steps That Will Evolve Your Views On Gay Marriage"

Dr James White has responded to the following blog article on his webcast last Tuesday.

14 Steps That Will Evolve Your Views On Gay Marriage

It is a really good response and shows why these steps are silly and don't really make any sense what-so-ever. The picture on the left is a case in point. Listen here.

dangerous idea: The Moral Argument that Christians don't use, but atheists always rebut

Dr Victor Reppert has posted a very interesting posting posing the following question.

Yet, when I hear atheists talking about moral arguments, they always assume that the advocate of the moral argument is saying that we have to believe in God to lead moral lives, (and indignantly argue that we don't have to believe in God to lead moral lives) in spite of the fact that Christian advocates of moral arguments, at least the ones I am familiar with NEVER say that. 
Why?

I agree with Dr Reppert. I have not ever heard a Christian scholar or apologist argue that unbelievers have to recognize God in order to have a moral code. The argument is that without God, you don't have a foundation for that moral guide any better or binding on everyone. It doesn't matter how often you say that the Bible does not say that godless people do not have morals. The Christian position is that morality is flawed and tainted by sin. So what about Dr Reppert's question. I think atheists default to the strawman position because they cannot give a satisfactory rebuttal to the moral argument for the existence of God and they are too proud to admit their failure.

dangerous idea: The Moral Argument that Christians don't use, but atheists always rebut

Spider-Man and Likeness Rights | Law and the Multiverse

I just found out about a very interesting article about intellectual property rights. The article is most interesting because it discusses those issues in the context of a storyline from the Ultimate Spider-Man comic book series. Here is how the article's author summarized the story and what the article discusses.

Here’s the complete history: As usual, Spider-Man tried to make some extra money on the wrestling circuit.  The company that organized the matches was Hercules Wrestling, Inc., and apparently Parker signed away the Spider-Man name and merchandising rights to Hercules.  Later, a Spider-Man movie came out, and the studio managed to prevent Hercules from putting out Spider-Man merch, resulting in Hercules going bankrupt.  Apparently a company called C and C Licensing picked up the rights from Hercules in bankruptcy. C and C is a subsidiary of GG Enterprises, which Fisk purchased.  Thus, through this chain of subsidiaries, Fisk owns the rights to the Spider-Man name as well as the licensing rights for his likeness.  As a result, Fisk actually wants Spider-Man to keep doing his thing because Fisk makes more money from the merchandise sales than he loses from Spider-Man meddling in his affairs.  Pretty villainous, eh?

Spider-Man and Likeness Rights | Law and the Multiverse

A World with No Math - Save the Children

Ever thought about how much the world would suck without math? This is a video promoting education for children in mathematics especially in less developed countries.




A World with No Math - Save the Children

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Jesus as a Huge Colony of Bacteria: Unclean!

I'm beginning to wonder if Harry McCall really believes the crap he posts or if he is just trying to make arguments to fool the gullible. Here is a case in point: I noticed that this post was put up on Debunking Christianity multiple times today, but taken down. It's short but from the piece of it I could see in my RSS feed, I thought that perhaps he or someone else wised up and thought better than post it. I was wrong because it showed up again a final time.  Look at this level of "argumentation".

Trillions of bacteria live in our bodies. They outnumber our human cells, 10 to 1. So who’s in charge? What are we? Maybe you thought your body was a noble castle poised against the onslaughts and invasions of the world. Well, think again. It turns out, we are the world. Our bodies are loaded with a jungle of microbial life, inside and out, that is essential to healthy life. New science has found ten times as many bacteria cells as human cells in and on the human body. A load of microbes that work with us from the moment of birth in all kinds of key ways.
Listen to this fascinating discovery on NPR .
(It's claimed Jesus was not tainted by Original Sin, however - based on modern facts - he sure was during vaginal birth!) 

Who said that unlike us Jesus did not have trillion of bacteria in our bodies? I see absolutely no reason to make that assertion especially given that our lives are possible by that bacteria. The only way I can see to save him from a complete faceplant is to assume that he is equating bacteria and germs with sin. Assuming that I'll give McCall a pass and assume ignorance instead of stupidity. No where does the Bible equate being clean with being sinless. Also you have trillions of bacteria inside and outside your body regardlessly of how much you bathe and clean yourself. "Clean" and "unclean" in the Mosaic laws was about ceremonial issues not sin. If bathing was enough to expatiate sin, then there would have been no need for blood sacrifices. Another point McCall fails to consider is that a person is exposed to a load of microbes and bacteria even before birth and none of this has anything to do with sin. The Bible tells us that we are sinners even before physical birth.

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. - Psalm 51:5

When we say Jesus was sinless we mean that He was not he was not a sinner not that his body was germless. Don't forget what Jesus said:

¹⁰ Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. ¹¹ What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

¹² Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”
¹³ He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. - Matthew 15:10-13


Debunking Christianity: Jesus as a Huge Colony of Bacteria: Unclean!

Answering - The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists #1

John Loftus has posted a link to a  list of questions for theists from another blog. Rather than answer all of them in a single post, I will take each of them one at a time. Today:

1. Why is the physical universe so unimaginably large?


No human being has a definitive answer to this question. We don't know.  It's size is beyond human comprehension but just because it's outside of our cognitive limitations - and growing - doesn't mean it's beyond he who created it.

Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance? - Isaiah 40:12

Rhetorical questions. Has to be God alone.It's an interesting question but answering it or not being answered has nothing to do with God's existence.



The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists

Related articles

• How I feel about atheists faith-baiting on Twitter: Stop it.

  ---

• How Do You Tell Your Parents You Believe in God?

  ---

• What is Atheism? Why The Definition Matters - By Reason Being

  ---

• School of Fail: Grumpy Dawkins is Grumpy

  ---

The Presidential Race & Social Media [infographic]

The Presidential Race & Social Media [infographic]

FacePlant of the Day - Cathy Cooper: Disengenuous Atheist

I wrote the following post responding to a post by Cathy Cooper on Debunking Christianity. The response is at: FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Christianity-- A Disingenuous Religion Based on Lies and Deception. Instead of responding in comments under her own name, she cowardly responded anonymously as if she too was a Christian. That's deceiving people as best and lying at worst. I thought that it could have been a "Christian" commenting because there are some people calling themselves "Christians" really think the hereasy she was spewing is true. I'm taking the comments that she made on the post for June 17, 2012 and responding to them here. She said she would post the same on her own blog. I hope she does and I think anyone who is interested should compare her post to what she commented on my blog.

Marcus, how sad! Why would I be a sinner to God when I have not committed any sins. I do not, nor have I ever had any dirty sexual thoughts. It is not the case that God made you a dirty sinner.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.  - 1 John 1:9-10

I never said that God never made us a sinner. The Bible does not say it.

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned —  Romans 5:12

There are a lot of other ways to sin that have nothing to do with sex.

You can choose to be sinless. Of course I am better than a adulterer, murderer, or child molester!

Where does the Bible say you can choose to be sinless? No you are not better than an adulterer, murderer, or child molester.  No one is. We are all depraved and deserving hell.

Again, Hebrews 10:26-27 makes it CLEAR that once you are saved you are to SIN NO MORE--or you go to the pit of fire.

26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. - Hebrews 10:26-27

I'm not saying that we can afford to deliberately keep on sinning. I don't deliberately keep on sinning. But you do. The passage does not say what you said it does. And you have misrepresented it, multiple times. Seems you have some repenting to God you should be doing.

Marcus, if you are a Christian and you have been saved, then it is easy to be sinless because your sin nature has been crucified and now you are led by the holy ghost--it is not a process--you are to sin no more!

And what scripture do you use to show that you can be sinless. Cathy, you are an atheist and you seem to think that you can be sinless without God. You can't. Pelagius even argued that we didn't need the crucifixion to be saved. He was wrong. Dead wrong. If we can be sinless, why did Jesus need to come to die to be our propititiation? Pelagius denies the fundamentals of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You have brought him up multiple.

You need to get saved and stop faking and making excuses for being a sinner. Stop blaming God for for your own lack of faith and weakness! God is not forcing you to sin. God is not forcing you to have dirty bad thoughts, or what ever else you consider a sin unless you want to just make out that everything we do is a sin so you can keep sinning and claim you have too because Jesus needs you to--what a sad and monstrous conception you have of God and Jesus!!

Who said that God is forcing anyone to have dirty thoughts? God is not forcing anyone to sin.  Jesus does not need us to do anything. Where are you getting such stupid theology?

12 Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him.
13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. - James 1:12-14
Marcus take responsibility for your own sins and quit blaming God.

Where have I blamed God? We deserve hell. That's not God's fault. You can't repent for your sin, without taking responsibility for them. But you deny that you sin. You seem to know a lot about avoiding responsibility.

Do you think that you can keep sinning because you sinned in the past and for God and Jesus that is ok because you were not perfect in the past--NO--that is not an excuse not to be perfect now, and by perfect I mean sinless.

No I don't think we should keep sinning. You keep misrepresenting Christian Theology. Do you think that that's okay? I don't. You might think that "perfect" equals sinless but that is not what the Greek word says in the passages I pointed out.

For example, lets say you start a new job and at first you make many mistakes. Do you think an employer will think that it is a good excuse for you to keep making the same mistakes years later because, after all you, were not perfect in the beginning--NO! It would not be acceptable and it is not acceptable to God or Jesus for you to keep sinning. Oh yea, I forgot, according to you, "To God we are all sinners."--and, Jesus needs you to keep sinning and you don't won't to let God and Jesus down--right Marcus!

@ Marcus, I meant to say:
Oh yea, I forgot, according to you, "To God we are all sinners."--and, Jesus needs you to keep sinning and you don't WANT to let God and Jesus down--right Marcus!

I never said that it's okay to keep sinning. Jesus does not need us for anything. No, I don't want to let Jesus down. I owe him too much. A Christian would not keep making the same mistakes. We will grow beyond our current state and stop sinning. We will grow and be more like Jesus.

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

The point of my Christian life is to be sinless like Jesus. As I learn more about God, I learn more about just how much sin God has saved me from.
@ Marcus--Yeah Marcus, it's me, and so are all of the "anonymous" comments above me. And thank you for illustrating my point. I will be posting this discussion on my blog post, A is for Atheist and Debunking Christianity to illustrate the absurdity of your way of thinking.

The truly absurd thing is that you don't know anything about God. You even deny that he exists and then pretend you can tell anyone what Christians believe.
The Christian philosopher Pelagius would be rolling over in his grave reading your post and comments, as he believed your way of thinking leads to "moral laxity." I bet you probably don't even know who Pelagius was though....

I know about Pelagius. He was wrong. St. Augustine was right. And Augustine shredded his arguments. Calling Pelagius a "Christian" is like calling David Koresh a "Christian" - not even close. Again Pelagius denied the need for Jesus' atonement as propititiation for sin. Of course he would disagree with me. He disagreed with the whole of the New Testasment - denying the whole point of it. I'm in good company referring to him as a heretic.

The Illusion of Choice [infographic]

The Illusion of Choice [infographic]

"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bible such that people think that before Jesus returns it is possible become sinless. However when one tries to live this out they quickly discover that they still can't measure up. Does this mean that the Bible is contradictory or does that means that we don't understand what the scriptures are saying? One of the scriptures that are often quoted to substantiate the claim that God expects us achieve sinless perfection  in this life is found from Jesus.

⁴⁸ Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.- Matthew 5:48


But let's look at the whole context of the verse.


⁴³ “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor^[i] and hate your enemy.’ ⁴⁴ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵ that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. ⁴⁶ If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? ⁴⁷ And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? ⁴⁸ Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.- Matthew 5:53-48


What does Jesus mean about being "perfect". If none are good and sinless but God, then what does it mean to be perfect considering that we will never be God? The context with the Greek tells us what the answer is. The context is Jesus drawing a distinction of behavior showing how inconsistent it is to love your neighbor but neglect loving your enemies. He points out that if you don't love your enemies you are doing no more than what people you look down as being less moral than you do. If you want to be perfect you have to love and greet not just your friends but people who hate you and don't care for you. It isn't about being sinless, it is about being a complete person under God's definition.


A short little word study bears this out.  The word here translated "perfect" is "tevleioß" it is defined as:

1. brought to its end, finished
2. wanting nothing necessary to completeness
3. perfect
4. that which is perfect
   1. consummate human integrity and virtue
   2. of men
      1. full grown, adult, of full age, mature  (source)

Nothing to necessarily be referring to sin. 


Is this word used in any other places? Yes. A related word "teleiovw" is also translated "perfect" in the following passage


⁷ During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. ⁸ Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered ⁹ and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him ¹⁰ and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.- Hebrews 5:7-10


Is the author of Hebrews implying that Jesus had to be made perfect by purging his sins? No. Given all the passages we have about Jesus' sinlessness, we can't conclude that the passage is referring to sins. "Perfect" in this case is like in Matthew 5:48. Jesus was made complete in his role as the source for our salvation by the suffering he endured for us!


There is another passage, I just love, that uses a similar word. Jesus last words on the cross before He died saving all those who believe in Him. 


30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said , It is finished : and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. - John 19:30

 Here "It is finished." is translated from "Teleo".

1. to bring to a close, to finish, to end
   1. passed, finished
2. to perform, execute, complete, fulfil, (so that the thing done corresponds to what has been said, the order, command etc.)
   1. with special reference to the subject matter, to carry out the contents of a command
   2. with reference also to the form, to do just as commanded, and generally involving the notion of time, to perform the last act which completes a process, to accomplish, fulfil
3. to pay
   1. of tribute

"It is finished or paid" John 19:30  (Source)



It was truly finished on the cross. All my sins paid for. The term is so amazing because it is also the same idea of saying "it's perfect" or "It doesn't get any better than this". It's like when a painter or an artist finishes a piece of art and is fully satisfied with what is produced. It was equivalent to saying "Voilà!!!" or "Check mate." And all I can say is "Amen."

Christian Logic, or Secular Ignorance?

Today on his webcast, The Dividing Line, Dr James White gave a rebuttal to the above image. It was really well done and the thing that he brought out is that the image is a true depiction of what "Bigotry" looks like. The image does not correctly express what Biblical logic truly is. The image is bulit around the popular but failed argument that Christians reject Homosexuality because the Bible says so, but ignores other laws in the Book of Leviticus. You can listen to James White's discussion at this link: here.


Christian Logic, or Secular Ignorance?

How Lasers Work [Video]

How Lasers Work [Video]