Answering Muslims: James White: Islam A to Z

Recently Dr James White gave a two-session presentation on Islam. Here is a good way to get up to speed: watch these!



Islam A to Z: Session 1 and Q&A from Lakeview Christian Center on Vimeo.




Islam A to Z: Session 2 and Q&A from Lakeview Christian Center on Vimeo.


Answering Muslims: James White: Islam A to Z

How Much Does the Internet Weigh? [Video]

Some good stuff!


How Much Does the Internet Weigh? [Video]

Fistbump of the day - Answering Muslims: Muslim Debate Tricks

David Wood has posted a list compiled by Yohannes that lists tactics Muslims use to win debates. The real interesting thing is that I've noticed some similar tactics Atheists use, only when Atheists use them they are even more pathetic. They have less to stand on. I've annotated the list in red.

In the comments section, Yohannes posted ten rules of Muslim debate. Since we see these tricks being implemented again and again, they deserve special attention.

WINNING DEBATES FOR DUMMIES: A Guide for Muslims to Win Debates with Ten Easy Tricks

1. Always keep your CAPS Lock on. This way your post will be difficult to read and no one will be able to answer.

Most Atheists I have tried to reason with tend to use all caps when shouting as most people.

2. Whenever someone comes up with a verse from the Quran that you are unable to defend, say that it is taken out of CONTEXT.

When you raise a verse from the Bible that the Atheist has butchered or just plain wrong about, the Atheists I've talked to tell you that it's wrong to use the Bible to prove the Bible. Smoke screen. Funny how some Muslims do the same thing when they fail to represent what the Bible says accurately.

3. Whenever someone comes up with a Hadith that you are unable to answer, say that Hadiths are not reliable.

Atheists do the same thing with scientists and scholars who disagree with them. Classic.

4. When someone comes to you with both the Quran and the Hadith, say that the Quran and the Hadith can only be understood in Arabic.

Here atheists claim that the Bible and Christian theology is so fragmented it's impossible to tell what interpretation is correct...except theirs.

5. When someone comes to you with the Quran and the Hadith and also proves that he/she understands Arabic, say that these verses are for a specific time period and could not be applied today.

Atheists ignore all the history and time Christianity has been around as if the arguments they trot out have never been answered or thought about. It's been 2000 years and longer for Judaism. They like to pretend the Bible is antiquated. I'm willing to accept that verses in the Qur'an can be for a specific time period and not applied today, because the same it true for the Bible. But there is a major difference. When the Bible contains commands for killing the Amalekites it was for the Jews at the time in the context of war and can't be followed today. When was the last time you met an Amalekite? Amorite? Exactly. There are not any. But when the Qur'an calls the killing for non-Muslims where does it stop? When either they convert or die.

6. When you cannot answer any questions, say that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and soon the entire world will believe.

I guess they mean the whole world will be Muslim after they kill everyone else who doesn't convert. Atheists are under the delusion that eventually they will be able to prove that there is no God and people will "grow" out of being religious. What they fail to understand is that a born-again Christian doesn't believe the Bible and in God because it makes them feel good. We believe because we know it's true.

7. When someone comes up with proofs that Islam is not the fastest growing religion, say that these figures are biased and compiled by Christians.

I've heard atheist say the same thing when they aren't complaining about being too few.

8. Paste some YouTube videos about the Quran's scientific miracles. When someone proves that these videos are stupid, shout that they are biased.

Atheists do the same thing only opposite. They try to debunk and disprove Christianity - failing miserably - but what else can they do.

9. Keep on pasting random verses from the Qur'an to divert attention.

Atheists accuse Christians of doing the same thing, only they think a single word from the Bible is irrelevant because they don't think it's probably true (although they can't prove that it's not true).

10. Finally, when you are totally on the run, curse and threaten people with Hell fire and say that they are not worthy of Islam.

This one Atheists and Muslims definitely have in common - profanity included.

Answering Muslims: Muslim Debate Tricks

FacePlant - Debunking Christianity: When Christians Criticize Each Other I Think They're All Right

John Loftus does not understand  Christian Theology. He even admits it. 

One way to tell whether a theory is in crisis to to observe how many versions of that theory have been proposed. When it comes to how the death of Jesus supposedly atones for sins there have been a lot of versions proposed by Christians who, for good reasons, have disputed the others.

Loftus is suggesting that Christians have varied and different viewpoints on how Jesus atones for those who put their faith in Him.

So let's recap. The earliest proposals were The Ransom Theory and the The Recapitulation Theory. Then came a host of them afterward, like Anslem's Satisfaction Theory, The Penal Substitutionary Theory, The Governmental Theory, The Moral Influence Theory, and recently The Relationship Theory. There are others: The Acceptance Theory. The Declaratory Theory. The Mystical Theory. The Guaranty Theory. The Vicarious Repentance Theory. The Christus Victor Theory. The Healing Theory. The Penal Non-Substitution Theory. The Kaleidoscope Theory. The Participatory Model. The Scapegoating Theory.

Loftus posts a laundry list of theologies regarding the atonement. The faceplant is that many of them are not contradictory of mutually exclusive at all. For example there is no conflict between Penal Substitution and the Scapgoating theory.  Hear that? That is the sound of a face slamming concrete - our propitiation.  If you wanna know how Jesus atones for our sin and what does it mean for Him to be our sin offering, read Hebrews and the rest of the New Testament.

Check some of them out! See also this book of four views, and watch as Christians trash the other views! You see, there is nothing left for me to do. Christians do it to themselves. All I need to do is point it out.

So not all Christians agree with each other. So what? Not all atheists agree with John Loftus, does not mean Atheism is wrong? Atheism is wrong, but not for the reason that Loftus is wrong or that other Atheists disagree with him.

Given nearly two millennia I’d venture to say with good reason that there will never be a cogent, well-argued version that can ever pass muster in the future either.

Oh, I get it: In his mind there are no cogent or well-argued understanding of how the Atonement works. .  

I think the whole idea of Jesus dying for my sins to restore me to God is built upon the beliefs of a superstitious ancient world, where gods and goddesses were pleased with sacrifices, whether they were human or animal ones.

 John Loftus is entitled to his opinion no matter how wrong it is. Loftus doesn't offer any evidence for that conclusion in this post, but that's what a faceplant looks like.

This ancient world is long gone now, so it’s time to give up believing in an incarnate God who offered a sacrifice for us on the cross to atone for our sins.

Here is the problem: what are you going to do about your sins?  If Jesus is not your propitiation then who is?  Yourself?  Problem is no one can pay for their own sin.  Loftus is one of those who decry the existence of evil and suffering. He believes that if there really was a God, He would get rid of such things if God was good. But I'm shocked that people don't stop to think "What happens to me, if God did exist and decided to get rid of all the evil in existence?" To most of us "evil" is the person over there doing things to other people that I would never do. That's not it. We have all sinned. None of us live up to the standards we set for ourselves about what is moral - right and wrong - completely and consistently every day. Why would anyone think that we should get away with that. We all agree that the one who rapes and murders a little child should be punished. Some even think they should be put to death - especially if it's their child. But what about when we lie on someone. Or steal an idea from someone as if it's our own? Bootleg a movie or a song? Cheat on taxes? Lust on a person who is not your spouse? Speeding when you aren't supposed to? These are wrong too and demand punishment. And some of these don't even seem like they should be an offense to us. That is why we have the Bible, it reveals sin to us that we don't already know about through our consciences. How do you pay what you owe to God because of your inability to live up to the standard of which he has set?  News Flash: you can't. 

When you stand before God to give an account for your life, how are you going to explain - given your obvious wretchedness - why God should not send you to the hell you have chosen to go? Waiting. Take your time.

Debunking Christianity: When Christians Criticize Each Other I Think They're All Right

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

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

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

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

Debunking Christianity: Adam and Eve Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answering Muslims: Dude, Who Killed My Prophet?

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




Answering Muslims: Dude, Who Killed My Prophet?

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

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


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

The Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem and William Lane Craig

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

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

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

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

and:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait the "logic" will kick in eventually.

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

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

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

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


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

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

Here is YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF YOUR DISHONESTY:

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

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

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

So, point 1 - you MISQUOTED ME AGAIN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sir Robert Anderson on Reason and Truth - Apologetics 315

Here is a great quote about spirituality from Sir Robert Anderson. Brian Auten posted it at the link at the end.

"[W]hile Divine truth is spiritual, and can only be spiritually discerned, human error is natural, and can be met on its own ground. We cannot “reason” men into the kingdom of God, but by reasoning we can expose errors which prejudice them against it."

- Sir Robert Anderson, The Bible and Modern Criticism, 5th ed. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1905), p. 27

[HT: Tim McGrew]

Sir Robert Anderson on Reason and Truth - Apologetics 315

FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #14

Well, eventually I thought that Johnny P would de-evolve back into faceplant comment. My comments are in red.

blah blah blah fallacy blah fallacy blah blah fallacy.

Nice job, Johnny P. You've managed to sum up a months worth of all your comments in a single sentence! Awesome!

The only reason I keep posting is because you keep misrepresenting me. Ant that is, to me, a personal insult. It is hard not to respond to someone who is lying about you and what you say.

I have not misrepresented you in anyway. But you have misrepresented and confounded the Christian worldview and refuse correction.

However, I couldn't even care about that anymore.

Yet you continue to comment. I can't wait for round 15.

Your points are tedious, as well as being wrong.

Yet you continue to fail to show why they are wrong. Just because you think they are inconsequential (and they aren't) don't make them wrong. But it does make you wrong.

You put words in my mouth like giant straw men, and I have lost the appetite to reason with someone so irrational.

I've documented your irrationality. And here comes more.

I never claimed of this argument what you think or want me to have claimed.

Yet you reject Christianity based upon it? Go figure.

Where you take this argument is another issue.

You mean to it's logical conclusion? Oh wait...you don't understand that.

For example, I would look at this in probabilities.

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

Is this situation of natural evil better explained by your version of God, or by atheism. Using standards for assessing explanatory power and scope, and Ockham's Razor, the answer is that this evidence is clearly far more probable and explicable under atheism (not that I'm strictly an atheist anyway, but logically an agnostic).

I disagree that the evidence you have provided make atheism probable in anyway. Besides you haven't interacted with any of the Biblical evidence at all. Just because it's above you and me doesn't mean you can just ignore it.

When you take this in combination with all the other logical issues of God....

Now watch this laundry list and honestly tell me that there has been answers given 2000 years ago?

...(unable to explain the compossibles of subsets of humans who would freely love him and only creating them, thus avoiding the necessity of hell and such evil and suffering at all,...

Well, Johnny P, if God had done that, you wouldn't be here would you? Nope. In fact none of us would be here, because none of can love God without His help. And for some reason, God wanted you here. Hopefully it will be because God will turn on your mind and you will freely love him.

...a point Craig was unable to refute,...

Where? And when? Reference? To be fair someone who favors and defends the idea of human libertarian free will to the degree Dr William Lane Craig does, is open to such an attack. However because atheists don't have the backing or understanding of God, they can't really leverage point properly. You can't even see your own chains of sin and depravity that you are chained by. I believe in free will, but only God truly has it and until Jesus frees us from sin you are hopelessly trapped and people like Johnny P can't even see ow trapped they are.

...failure of theodicies to explain evil effectively such as the natural death of 3/4 of all human foetuses before birth,

Oh yes, this trope again. I remember this. You fallaciously conflated still-births and miscarriages with Abortions. Re-read Acts 17. Your answer is there.

...issues of divine personhood,....

John 1:1-18; Phil 2 Happy, Now? This will get you started. You're welcomed.

...exegesis and historicity of the bible,...

Given that you think the Bible is irrelevant and don't know it I don't think you have prayer in demonstrating that.

...physics of time,...

Where do you think the Bible makes claim on the Physics of Time?

... the fact we have no free will,...

Yeah, so? Are you arguing that we do? How do you know?

...the special pleading of Christianity over any other religion, ....

It's not special pleading if one is claiming mutually exclusive truth - it necessitates that all other religions are wrong! If you want to accuse "special pleading" then you have to prove that there is no God or that God has not revealed Himself through Christianity.

....comparative religions better explaining events like the flood, ...

Name one.

...the impossibility of biblical accounts such as the flood, ...

How do you simultaneously claim that comparative religions better explain an event that you now claim is impossible?

...the failure and incoherence of arguments such as the KCA and Moral Argument,...

Sure would like to see you try to demonstrate that. It'd be hilarious

... imperfect revelation such that some 32,000 denominations of Christianity exist etc etc I could go on ad infinitum).

So just because people look at something differently, or got it wrong, that makes the Bible wrong? LOL. That would make atheism wrong too.

Faceplant all over.

You think you are all that, you really do. Your self-delusion matches the delusion of your belief. Good luck in life being a more critical thinker. I would advise doing some sort of philosophy qualification, unless your cognitive dissonance forces you only to do things which will cohere with your presupposed belief.

What had happen' was.....: FacePalm of the Day #142 - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #13

FacePalm of the Day #142 - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #13

Well, I believe the problem is that Johnny P refuses to not be the last one to speak on this subject on my blog. Apparently, he will continue to leave comments until I allow him to have the last word. I don't mind. I can do this every single day if I have to because maybe just maybe God might get through to Johhny P and he will know just how bad some of his arguments and his conclusions are. God may yet have mercy. My annotations are in red.

This is poor.

Which part? And how are you going to prove that?

You have admitted to agreeing to my argument without admitting it.

Nope, I've said exactly where I agree with you and where I disagree with you. Maybe you need to re-read it....slowly.

You still equivocate on world. You cannot understand that you judge a world by outcome, and still build up straw men of what you wanted me to have said rather than what I said.

World is not a triviality here - if you are actually trying to make an argument and a meaningful point. I agree and have said that you have not said anything worth responding to outside of your fallacious premises and conclusions.

And you still don;t understand that the ingredients are necessary to achieve the outcome, which is the whole basis of the argument.

I've asked you to explain what outcome you are talking about. I agreed that all the evil and suffering in this world our necessary for the plan and goals God has determined with God's self, for God's self, and by God's self.

You still don't understand how God chose this world and that choice is perfect, and since it could have been any other world in conception, and God chooses perfectly, then this must be the most perfect world (out of all the choices).

Here again is where I disagree. Just because this world is as it is now, does not mean that it's the perfect world that God will bring about despite of and through the pain and suffering you seem to obviously have a problem with.

And you still don't understand that by saying perfect world I do not mean exclusively when I said it then, but not now, and not before, that this equivocation is stupid, that it is judged on outcome (as mentioned many times now).

What outcome are your referring to: the pain and suffering experienced now or the "the glory that will be revealed in us" (Romans 8:18)?

You seem to want to choose your time for perfect world - before humans. Well, fine, who cares? The fact is, God designed tsunamis, decided perfectly to allow them to kill humans in a world which he has perfectly chosen over and above any other world. Thus they, and all other natural evil, are ingredients in his perfectly chosen world, which must be perfect by outcome / ensemble.

And to top it off, you say this UTTER STRAW MAN:

"In all his ramblings, Johnny P has not shown why this answer is wrong."

I NEVER SET OUT TO SHOW THIS WAS WRONG! STOP THESE STUPID FALLACIES AND GET A GRIP.

Perfectly chosen? Yes. Look you wrote an "essay" that you described that "critiques" the Christian worldview that was posted on a blog called Debunking Christianity. If your goal was not to show that the answer given by the Christian worldview is incorrect and does not make sense, then why did you write it? Why waste an entire month arguing about it? Why are you even an atheist if you don't think that the Christian Worldview is wrong? What point are you trying to make? Is it that you don't always understand how an all-good God can allow evil, pain, and suffering? Join the club. We got T-shirts. The Bible is full of that question being asked and answered. It doesn't matter if you don't like the answer for it to be true. This should be a slam dunk and you should be running to a church and falling down on your knees in abject surrender to God who made you. Looks like you are the one who needs a grip. His name is Jesus Christ. Reach for Him.

My conclusions are these:

IF you are a Christian
THEN you must accept that all natural evils are necessary ingredients in a perfect world.

Not in the world as we see it now. And not just all natural evils, but everything that ever happened will go into what God is building and making. No where in the Bible does it say that this world is prefect. By all means, consider the ensemble. You say you are but by your conclusions in rejecting God, you show you are not looking at the ensemble, just the little piece you think you understand. But we will see how it all comes together and we will know it's perfect when Jesus returns for His people. The question you need to be asking yourself is, are you one of his people?

You can equivocate like a child all you want that I meant perfect world now. But I didn't, I never said that, and it would make no sense whatsoever anyway. Words in my mouth.

You mean you didn't write the following quote?

If this is where logic takes a Christian, then they can keep their God in all his maximal perfection. And while they’re at it, they can package up all the pain and suffering and send it return post to the pearly gates. Not needed here, thanks.

And now you are saying that you didn't intend to prove that the logic employed by Christians is wrong. Then are you trying to say that you reject it out of a purely emotional fit? Yep. Like a whining, kicking, and screaming baby who doesn't get what he wants and so lashes out? Yup. How mature is that? It's not. You have no argument, if you are not weighing in on whether or not Christianity is true and why you reject it. Remember the name of the blog which you love that the post originally appeared in, right? What point were you trying to make then? If it was an exercise in pontification, you succeeded awesomely.


What had happen' was.....: FacePalm of the Day #141 - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #12

Related articles

• How to articulate a Christian world-view in four easy steps (pjcockrell.wordpress.com)
• The Perfect Christian (5ptsalt.com)
• A Perfect World (graftedinelena.wordpress.com)

Truthbomb Apologetics: Counterpoints: Richard Dawkins and C.S. Lewis

On his blog, Chad has posted an interesting contrast of points. A famous quote from Richard Dawkins about the meaningless of existence and a counter points that rebutts it very nicely from C.S. Lewis. Check them out at the link below!

Truthbomb Apologetics: Counterpoints: Richard Dawkins and C.S. Lewis

Answering Muslims: Who Killed Muhammad?

Answering Muslims: Who Killed Muhammad?

dangerous idea: Never Ever Bludgeon Babies? You'll Get an Argument from Peter Singer and Michael Tooley

I'm really glad Dr Reppert posted this on his blog. I think the fact that infanticide and genocide are possible logical consequences of atheistic morality, if you are gonna be consistent about it. Take a look.

dangerous idea: Never Ever Bludgeon Babies? You'll Get an Argument from Peter Singer and Michael Tooley

Faithful Thinkers: Video: Adam's Sin On Us Is Not Fair

Thanks to Luke Nix for calling attention to this video in which Dr Norman Geisler answers the question regarding the fairness of us bearing the curse of sin, given that Adam started it.

I think Geisler answered the first part wonderfully. We don't to hell because of what Adam did. We deserve hell because of what we have done, do, and will do. As for the follow-up, I disagree. It makes no sense to talk about God trying to save people and failing. Either Jesus is our propitiation or He is not. Why would we need Christ to be our propitiation if we can lives free of sin?
Video: Adam's Sin On Us Is Not Fair

OmniTouch: How to Turn Any Surface Into a Multi-Touch Screen [Video]

I think that this is so awesome. With such a device as this, one might not need to carry around a phone, tablet, or a lap top! I hope that as time goes on the shoulder mounted peripheral can be miniturized into a device small enough to wear on glasses or on a tie or a headband!




OmniTouch: How to Turn Any Surface Into a Multi-Touch Screen [Video]

FacePalm of the Day #141 - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #12

So it seems Johnny P is unwilling or unable to leave his faceplants well-enough alone. That's fine. At least in his latest round of comments he's managed to redeem himself - a little. It's an upgrade from a faceplant to merely causing a facepalm.Well that is progress. Sorta. I thought that the arguments were much clearer and tighter this time around. Johnny musta had his wish granted and gotten some help. But sense it retains its ad hominems and uncleverness I'll assume it's his words. My annotations are in red.

Let me explain this to you in simple terms so that you can finally understand what I am saying. I will do this in several ways so that you are able to follow the argument in a simple fashion.

I think you keep trying to hide behind a smokescreen in accusing me in not understanding you. I understand you fine...like a children's book. I just disagree with you and I don't think at the end of the day you are saying anything other than Christianity is horrible. (going back to your original post) but you can't substantiate why. 

First, let’s use the choice approach.

God is perfect.
God makes perfect choices – he cannot choose imperfectly.
God had a choice between this world with tsunamis/cancer/malaria and this world without tsunamis.
God chose this world with tsunamis/cancer/malaria etc.
Tsunamis etc are a necessary part of God’s perfect choice.

Agreed. The problem is that is not what you originally wrote. You said  "Tsunamis etc are a necessary part of God’s perfect world." Biblically, there is a huge difference between "choice" and "world". That is what you are missing.

Ok, that was simple. Every Christian I have met agrees with this. You seem not to grasp it. Let’s try the question approach. I will answer the questions as to how I think you would answer, since it is how all other Christians answer, including Craig and Fernandes.

I do not think any of these people you have met would agree with you that "God's perfect choice" is equivalent to "God's perfect world". If this was God's end goal, why would he allow it to be destroy and tells us that it will be replaced with perfection?  I mean think about it a moment.

Why are there tsunamis/cancer/malaria in the world?
“It’s all part of God’s plan” “We don’t know the mind of God” “It must serve a greater good”
These answers are stock omniscience escape clause answers and can be summed up as “It’s all part of God’s plan (for a greater good)”.

In all his ramblings, Johnny P has not shown why this answer is wrong. Only that he doesn't like it. And why should anyone care about what he doesn't like?

Is God perfect?
“Yes”

Yup

Can God plan imperfectly?
“No”

Nope

So tsunamis/cancer/malaria etc are part of God’s perfect plan?
“Yes”

The plan yes, to glorify Himself.

Both of these approaches are what I was putting forward. If God is perfect, then these things, since he chose a world with them rather than one without them are part of his perfect plan. This world is his plan, ergo part of this perfect world.

Off the rails. This is not a perfect world. It's necessary to the plans and choices God has made.

Your main tactic, other than to misunderstand and misrepresent the argument for 8 pages of drivel, was to equivocate on the word ‘world’. For example, you tried to claim it was perfect at creation, but made imperfect by humans. However, you failed to follow your logic through.

"Drivel" is a description that people like Johnny P use for things they can either show is meaningless or that they don't understand. Given that he has failed to show his epistemology for "world",. "good", or "evil", I'm forced to conclude that he doesn't understand the Christian Worldview. Check it. The Bible never claims that this world is perfect, only that it was perfect before human depravity. This is why your argument that there is a problem with the Christian worldview is flawed. The Bible never pretends that such things as natural disasters, human evil, or diseases are not part of God's plan nor not under His control. In fact the only reason we ain't more evil is that God is restraining it.

God chose humans knowing their Fall, rather than choosing for them not to exist, so EVEN THEY must be necessary part of the perfect plan (and all their evil).

But not a perfect world. That plan will result in the perfect world. Re-read Roman 8. Johnny, it might be over your head. If you need help holler. 

When philosophers talk about actual and possible worlds, they do so without temporality.

The Bible doesn't. And where is your reference proving that "When philosophers talk about actual and possible worlds, they do so without temporality. "? I wanna see it.

And here is your equivocation. You kept implying and demanding some kind of temporal quality to WHEN the world is perfect. This is silly, because first of all you claim it was perfect at creation and then imperfect after. Yet humans are a perfect choice of God. What is the point of everything after? Why bother? Why ruin perfection with imperfection? A perfect God wouldn’t choose to ruin a perfect creation without a perfect outcome to mitigate it.

Again here is your fail. If God had not allowed the fall, you would not have been born. Y'know the you that exists now.  Think about. Would you have been born and ended up exactly where you are and who you are had key events that you had nothing to do with had not occurred. I am a product of a people who were oppressed, enslaved, raped, and who-knows-what. What that evil? You bet. Would I have been born or my parents had it not happened? Nope.  Did God have a good reason for allowing it.  God tells us He does. I believe Him. I don't believe you.

Secondly, you seem to demand a temporal quality to the world I claim as being perfect. But this equivocation is silly. When I first posted the piece, did I mean a perfect world only at 12.15 on 10/01/2011? How about the next day or the day before? When I talk of perfect worlds, is it only relevant at the exact time I say it? Or now? How about now? This is silly.

Dude, we live and exist inside of time. The world is changing all the time in time. At one time there was one continental land mass and now there are several. And yes when you talk of a perfect world "when" is important and what you mean by "perfect" is of much importance. That is if you are going to be rigorous. 

Perfect worlds are judged by the outcome, or the entire process. Either way, the process is integral in reaching the outcome, obviously.

So are you, Johnny, going on record to say that this world in it's present state is worthy to be called complete? That there is nothing coming after this moment that would have an affect of how you judge the quality of the world? If you'd answer "Yes",. that's not just silly that's dumb. 

So when philosophers talk about this world being perfect, we don’t mean at 2 o’clock on Tuesday, nor do we mean at the beginning, as you assume

Not me. The Bible says the creation was perfect. And when Jesus come back for His people, it will be perfect again.

Perhaps we mean as an ensemble. When I mean this world in an atemporal sense, I am talking about the world as an ensemble from start to finish.

Then your argument is truly flawed. I'm talking about the world in the very since. At it's conclusion we can call it perfect. Since the fall, until the end, we cannot. God's choices and plan however are perfect.

But, in the sense of judging the world, we mean by outcome. When I talk of a perfect car, I don’t mean during its manufacturing process, but the end result. From a Christian’s point of view, we could still be in the manufacturing process of this world. Which is why I kept mentioning OUTCOME.

As an Atheist, you don't know what the OUTCOME is. You have nothing meaningful you can say about the outcome. Today and all the evils you are whining about are not the final outcome.

These tsunamis and natural evils are ingredients are necessary ingredients for this perfect world (which may yet come to pass) otherwise they are neutral ingredients which serve no purpose and are random.

 I don't disagree in that this perfect world we long for is still coming. It's not here. 

To arrive at the perfect world, you need the perfect parameters, which is why I called the parameters and outcome effectively synonymous for the purposes of this argument.

 Nope. The ingredients are not perfect. That is what makes God so awesome. He can make awesome out of crap. That is why there is hope for us.

God has chose both, and God chooses perfectly. Thus both the parameters and out outcome of this world are perfect choices.

Perfect choices does not equal perfect world. 

However, you failed to see how the argument worked, and spent more time demanding my qualifications. More fool you. Well done. You showed yourself to be a consummate philosopher. Sorry, plonker.

Actually, I think I showed that you have no argument at all and you don't know what the Bible says. And by that way what is a "plonker"?  You been spending time in the mirror?

Just in case you didn’t realise in my original post that I am talking about the outcome by way of everything throughout history: “This includes every piece of suffering and death experienced by every animal and plant in the history of the world.” I did not say “This is a perfect world NOW based on everything that happens JUST NOW IN THIS INSTANCE!” This is a perfect world based on the choice of this world over any other. How do you compare one world to another? Certainly not by picking arbitrary individual instants of time out, out of their context, and comparing them!!!!

I'm not either. I'm saying God is going to take everything and we will look back on all of it and realize how perfect God is and his choices and plans are. We are going to be praising him forever because of it. Sorry, I mean us not we (ie not you).

There really is, on a good and proper reading of the original text, no need to have drivelled on and on.

You mean that you  the Christian Worldview is not wrong. And that God is right? And you have no basis for being an atheist based on this argument? We agree.

What had happen' was.....: Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P