ARE ALMIGHTY GOD & JESUS PART OF A TRINITY IN REVELATION 11-16?
When we carefully examine what the scriptures have to tell us about this issue, the truth becomes vey clear that the Trinity doctrine is not found in the scriptures, not in Revelation chapters 11-16, nor in any other part of the Bible.
“The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign forever and ever . . . We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, the One who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun to reign”—Revelation 11:15,17 NIV
“Our Lord” is the “Lord God Almighty, the One who is and who was”, who rules through “his Messiah”, Jesus Christ. These verses plainly show that the Almighty is the one in control and is superior over Jesus Christ, and that they are “two” separate and distinct individuals (John 8:17,18). Also, if the holy spirit was really a person, and part of a Trinity, why is not mentioned in this context?
“Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah”—Revelation 12:10 NIV
” . . . those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus”—Revelation 12:17 NIV
These verses also make clear that “God” and “his Messiah”, “Jesus”, are “two” entirely separate and distinct individuals (John 8:17,18). The holy spirit’s absence here is evidence that it is not a person, nor is it part of a Trinity.
“There before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads . . . They were purchased from among mankind and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb”—Revelation 14:1,4 NIV
Here we also see the distinction between “the Lamb”, who is Jesus Christ, and “God”, who is his “Father”. And, once again, there is no mention of the holy spirit, providing further evidence the Holy Spirit is not a person, and there is no Trinity in existence.
“He said in a loud voice, ‘Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water'”–Revelation 14:7 NIV
This verse verse commands the “fear” and “worship” of “God”, not Jesus Christ, not the Holy Spirit, and not any Trinity.
“Great and marvelous are your deeds, Lord God Almighty. Just and true are your ways, King of the nations. Who will not fear you, Lord, and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your righteous acts have been revealed”–Revelation 15:3,4 NIV
In these verses, it is once again emphasized that the “Lord God Almighty” is THE one to be feared and worshipped, not Jesus Christ, not the Holy Spirit, and not any Trinity.
“You are just in these judgments, O Holy One, you who are and who were . . . Yes, Lord God Almighty, true and just are your judgments”–Revelation 16:5-7 NIV
“O Holy One” and “you who are and who were”, describe the “Lord God Almighty” (Revelation 15:3,4; 1:8), the one who is the ultimate judge of all (Revelation 19:2; Acts 17:31; John 5:22).
Thus, Revelation chapters 11-16 not only give no support whatsoever to any Trinity doctrine, these chapters provide much contradictory evidence against the Trinity doctrine.
189 thoughts on “ARE ALMIGHTY GOD & JESUS PART OF A TRINITY IN REVELATION 11-16?”
God does not exist, and this has been proven. There is no good evidence that the Holy Spirit exists, and so we may assume it doesn’t. Jesus existed as a traveling minister in the first century CE, but was not divine.
While you are entitled to your viewpoints, they are not correct, because, “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:20 NIV). In fact, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1 NIV). The extreme complexities of the universe, and all life and life-supporting systems on earth, could not have arisen without a Creator. As Hebrews 3:4 so simply and succinctly states, “Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything” (NIV).
RT: While you are entitled to your viewpoints, they are not correct, because,…
GW: I strongly disagree with the last part of this claim. You have yet to find any error in my argument.
RT: “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:20 NIV).
GW: The existence of God is only one of about six hypotheses proposed to account for the existence of the universe, and it is the least likely of the six to be true. In fact, it has now been proven that God does not exist.
RT: In fact, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1 NIV).
GW: But the wise man says it aloud.
RT: The extreme complexities of the universe, and all life and life-supporting systems on earth, could not have arisen without a Creator.
GW: I strongly disagree. The complexities, including life and the Earth, arose from the combinations of more basic units in particular ways, due to the eternal and intrinsic ORDERLINESS of the universe.
GW: The idea of God was invented as a parental substitute figure in ancient times. When we are babies and children we grow up with parents who seem to us as all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly moral. Later, we learn that they are not really this way, but we like the idea of having a parental figure who is. Ancient peoples invented the God concept to fill this wish.
RT: As Hebrews 3:4 so simply and succinctly states, “Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything” (NIV).
GW: The universe is hardly analogous to a house. We now know that God does not exist. You are still evading my argument. So far, you have found no error in it.
Your assertion: “The complexities, including life and the earth, arose . . . due to the eternal and intrinsic orderliness of the universe”, is logically and patently false. All science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the universe had a beginning, a beginning of all matter and energy, and space-time itself (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 11:3). Logic has proven that actual infinity is impossible. If the universe were eternal, then it has existed for an infinite number of days, which is impossible. There can be no “intrinsic orderliness” by chance. “Intrinsic orderliness” can only come from design, by a designer. The “intrinsic orderliness” of the universe at its beginning until now can only come from its Creator and controller. “Do you know how God controls the clouds and makes his lightning flash? Do you know how the clouds hang poised, those wonders of him who has perfect knowledge? The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power” (Job 37:15,16,23 NIV).
RT: Your assertion: “The complexities, including life and the earth, arose . . . due to the eternal and intrinsic orderliness of the universe”, is patently false.
GW: I strongly disagree with you on this point. But try to prove that my assertion is false.
RT: All science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the universe had a beginning, a beginning of all matter and energy, and space-time itself.
GW: Here are three references which show your claim here to be false:
Videos on Did the Universe Begin?
1 Sean Carroll – Did the Universe Begin?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgpvCxDL7q4
2. Roger Penrose – Did the Universe Begin?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFqjA5ekmoY
3. Did the Universe Have a Beginning? | Episode 1201 | Closer To Truth
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrWmn1XXtRiyRUAbwkPxQt.;_ylu=Y29sbwNncTEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3BpdnM-?p=You+tube%3A++Did+the+universe+begin%3F&xargs=0&type=ud-c-us–s-p-era3edek–exp-none–subid-none¶m1=xx7l6a7sfm8xzjj4p6uhdvsj&hsimp=yhs-040&hspart=infospace&ei=UTF-8&fr=yhs-infospace-040#id=5&vid=acd0ae80f1584a1f10c1f8a5e8288294&action=view
RT: Logic has proven that actual infinity is impossible.
GW: I strongly disagree. Show your work on this.
RT: If the universe were eternal, then it has existed for an infinite number of days, which is impossible.
GW: Infinity is not a number. It is a feature of a set of things, meaning “uncountable or unending.” For example, the set of all events is probably infinite, i.e. uncountable or unending.
RT: There can be no “intrinsic orderliness” by chance.
GW: Intrinsic chance and intrinsic orderliness coexist! There are random or chance interactions of atoms, but the atoms interact in dependable ways because of the intrinsic orderliness of the universe. These are just brute facts.
RT: “Intrinsic orderliness” can only come from design, by a designer.
GW: That is a contradiction. If orderliness is intrinsic, then it wasn’t installed extrinsically.
RT: The “intrinsic orderliness” of the universe at its beginning until now can only come from its Creator and controller.
GW: I strongly disagree. You are contradicting yourself. See above. The more probably true explanation is that the universe is eternally existing and intrinsically dynamic and orderly. In fact, the best definition of the universe is this: “the totality of dynamic-orderly energy-matter in space-time.”
RT: “Do you know how God controls the clouds and makes his lightning flash? Do you know how the clouds hang poised, those wonders of him who has perfect knowledge? The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power” (Job 37:15,16,23 NIV).
GW: God does not exist, as shown by my argument, in which you have found no errors. So far, you have provided no good evidence, reasons, or arguments to think that even a creator, besides God, exists. If he did, then he would be either immoral or amoral. A moral creator is not compatible with the world in which we live. And why would anyone wish to worship an immoral or moral creator? It would be like worshiping Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump. I would never do such a thing.
GW: If an alleged god told me to kill my own child, e.g. Abraham and Isaac, I would defy him.
“Intrinsic” means, “basic to a thing, an important part of making it what it is,” according to the Cambridge Dictionary, so the meaning that you attach to “intrinsic” is flawed. The “intrinsic orderliness of the universe” not only does not preclude a Creator and Controller, it gives powerful proof of the existence of its Creator and Controller. You are simply in denial of the facts regarding the universe having a beginning. Additionally, scientific geniuses have been forced to admit that the laws of physics “seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design” (Superforce, 1984, by Paul Davies). In his 1988 book, The Cosmic Blueprint, Davies asks: “If new organizational levels just pop into existence for no reason, why do we see such an orderly progression in the universe from featureless origin to rich diversity?” He concluded that we have “powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all” and that “the impression of design is overwhelming.” Just as God asked Job 3500 years ago, “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades? Can you loosen Orion’s belt? Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead the Bear out with its cubs? Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God’s dominion over the earth?” (Job 38:31-33 NIV).
The fact is that God tested Abraham, but did not actually want him to kill his son. Abraham actually “was about to sacrifice his one and only son”, but “the angel of the LORD called out to him ‘Do not lay a hand on the boy . . . Do not do anything to him” (Hebrews 11:17 NIV; Genesis 22:11,12 NIV).
RT: “Intrinsic” means, “basic to a thing, an important part of making it what it is,” according to the Cambridge Dictionary, so the meaning that you attach to “intrinsic” is flawed.
GW: Oh, I strongly disagree. The meaning I attribute to “intrinsic” is exactly the meaning attributed to it by the Cambridge Dictionary. Orderliness is intrinsic to the universe in the sense that it is an important part of making the universe what it is, just like change, energy-matter, and space-time are intrinsic to the universe.
RT: The “intrinsic orderliness of the universe” not only does not preclude a Creator and Controller, it gives powerful proof of the existence of its Creator and Controller.
GW: I suppose that an intrinsic property could have always been there or could have been installed through some process. I assert that orderliness has always been there in the universe, whereas you assert that it was installed by God. We know that your assertion is false since we already know that God does not exist. On the other hand, orderliness might have been installed in the universe by something else, but we have no good evidence what it might have been. So, assuming that orderliness was always in the universe seems to be the best default assumption at this time.
RT: You are simply in denial of the facts regarding the universe having a beginning.
GW: You keep contradicting yourself. You claim that the universe had a beginning. I assume by “had a beginning” that you mean that the universe came from nothing. (You further believe that the universe was caused to come from nothing by God.) And yet, on other occasions you have claimed that something cannot come from nothing. Do you now see your contradiction? You must make a choice among these three alternatives: A) Something cannot come from nothing. B) Something can come from nothing. Or C) You’re undecided and don’t know if something can come from nothing. Which do you actually believe? Make your choice. I doubt you will answer this question because you like to be ambiguous on purpose, and a direct answer would entail admitting that you had been contradicting yourself.
RT: Additionally, scientific geniuses have been forced to admit that the laws of physics “seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design” (Superforce, 1984, by Paul Davies).
GW: You are making at least two errors in your thinking here. First, you take words like “seem” or “appear” to mean that a fact has been discovered, when it hasn’t. If any person, even a physicist, says “The universe seems to have been designed by somebody” then this is just speculation or personal belief, not a fact or discovery. Secondly, you almost always use old sources to support your claims. For example, the citation you give here is from 1984, 38 years ago. New things have been learned and the scientific consensus has changed since then. In contrast, the three film clips I cited are far more recent.
RT: In his 1988 book, The Cosmic Blueprint, Davies asks: “If new organizational levels just pop into existence for no reason, why do we see such an orderly progression in the universe from featureless origin to rich diversity?”
GW: Again, this is an old source, 34 years old. And here Davies just poses a question. I contest the premise of his question. These levels emerge for reasons, most of which are known to be a new combinations of energy-matter. For example, consciousness emerges from brains of sufficient size and complexity. Water emerges from a specific combination of hydrogen and oxygen.
RT: He concluded that we have “powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all” and that “the impression of design is overwhelming.”
GW: This is mundane. Even Richard Dawkins has said that living things give the impression of having been designed, but he believes that evolution accounts for that impression perfectly well. If you want some really solid evidence, produce the alleged designer. You can’t!
RT: Just as God asked Job 3500 years ago, “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades? Can you loosen Orion’s belt? Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead the Bear out with its cubs? Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God’s dominion over the earth?” (Job 38:31-33 NIV).
GW: It’s just a story. Who was talking to Job in the story? Was it God? In real life, it could not have been God because we now know that God does not exist. We even know that in fiction the voice would not have been God’s voice. How do we know this? Because God would never have given that answer to Job who was asking why a series of tragedies had befallen him. If God did exist and answered Job, he would have honestly given the real reason – God made a bet with Satan. But of course, God would never do that either. It would be immoral, and by definition God is perfectly moral. Do you see the problems here?
One more time—Science has proven that there was nothing in the physical world prior to the beginning of the universe, which confirms Hebrews 11:3 (NIV): “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what is visible”. God, who is not part of the physical world, and is outside of time and space, transformed some of his “power”, or energy into matter (E=MC2). “Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls each of them by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength not one of them is missing” (Isaiah 40:26 NIV). “Great is our Lord and mighty in power.” “He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name” (Psalm 147:5,4 NIV).
RT: One more time—Science has proven that there was nothing in the physical world prior to the beginning of the universe,…
GW: For however many times it takes, science has not drawn any conclusions about what happened prior to the Big Bang. You are just misinterpreting what you are reading about the topic or you are just cherry picking opinions which agree with your old preconceived idea. Watch the three videos I sent you, if you would like to update your knowledge.
RT: which confirms Hebrews 11:3 (NIV): “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what is visible”.
GW: This is just false. We now know that God does not exist. See my argument, in which you have found no error. The universe is composed of small units of energy-matter, each of which is not visible to the naked eye. It is very likely that the universe is eternal.
RT: God, who is not part of the physical world, and is outside of time and space, transformed some of his “power”, or energy into matter (E=MC2).
GW: There is no good evidence of anything which exists outside of time and space. If you think there is, name the thing and present the good evidence. To exist means to be real within space and time. However, if God did exist (he doesn’t), I think the best idea is that he would exist in space and time and would have excised a part of his spiritual self and transformed that part into energy-matter. And so, we may half agree on that particular idea. Too bad God does not exist.
RT: “Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls each of them by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength not one of them is missing” (Isaiah 40:26 NIV).
GW: This was just the belief of the ancient author of Isaiah, which we now know to be false. God does not exist. You cannot use the Bible to prove that God exists since all it does is repeat your claim that he does exist. Like you, the Bible provides no convincing evidence for God’s existence, while I have presented you with a sound refutation of God’s existence which you continue to evade.
RT: “Great is our Lord and mighty in power.” “He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name” (Psalm 147:5,4 NIV).
GW: Unfortunately for you, indeed for all of us, God does not exist! This has been proven by many arguments, one of which is mine, in which you have found no error and continue to evade. You write like a shifty politician speaks, who when asked a direct question, goes off on a tangent about something else. I challenge you to read each of the 17 steps in my argument, comment on each one, say whether you agree or disagree with each step, and find an error if you can. Many have tried and nobody has found an error, yet. Maybe you will be the first, but I doubt it.
RT: The fact is that God tested Abraham, but did not actually want him to kill his son.
GW: Ross, it’s just a story! There is no good evidence that this actually happened. We know the story is false because if God did exist, he would never have commanded Abraham to commit a sin like killing or sacrificing his own son! That would be impossible because God would be perfectly moral. He could, would, and should not facilitate an immoral act. I don’t know why you are so easily fooled by these stories.
RT: Abraham actually “was about to sacrifice his one and only son”, but “the angel of the LORD called out to him ‘Do not lay a hand on the boy . . . Do not do anything to him” (Hebrews 11:17 NIV; Genesis 22:11,12 NIV).
GW: According to one scholar who wrote to me (I doubt that I can retrieve the exchange), in the original version of the story, Abraham did kill his son. But the ending doesn’t really matter since it would have been immoral for God to issue the command to Abraham to sacrifice his own child in the first place. What a horrendous immoral sinful command! Why do you worship an immoral god?
GW: If any person (or just a voice) told me to kill my own daughter and sacrifice her to some god, my first speculations would be fraud or hallucination. I might ask the voice “Why should I kill my daughter on your command?” When the voice did not respond or gave a bad reason, then I would just tell the voice to go f__k himself. I can’t imagine a good reason. Would you kill your child under these circumstances? If so, explain yourself.
GW: Our continued exchanges all boil down to one question – Does God exist? I have shown that he doesn’t, and you have found no error in my argument.
Your so-called “scholar” doesn’t know what he’s talking about, because the oldest, original Hebrew manscripts of Genesis 22, indicate that Abraham was stopped short of killing Isaac. Your flimsy so-called “proofs” of God’s “non-existence” have been thoroughly refuted numerous times on this website. For example, your book’s title “God Wants You To Be An Atheist” is an oxymoron in, and of, itself!!!!! “The wisdom of of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness'” (1 Corinthians 3:19 NIV).
RT: Your so-called “scholar” doesn’t know what he’s talking about, because the oldest, original Hebrew manscripts of Genesis 22, indicate that Abraham was stopped short of killing Isaac.
GW: An expert disagrees with you, but I won’t debate the point because I don’t think I can retrieve the email from him.
RT: Your flimsy so-called “proofs” of God’s “non-existence” have been thoroughly refuted numerous times on this website.
GW: To refute the argument we are discussing you would have to find some error in reason within the argument, and so far you haven’t done that.
RT: For example, your book’s title “God Wants You To Be An Atheist” is an oxymoron in, and of, itself!!!!!
GW: Your attention is wandering. Try to keep your mind on the “Proof Against the Existence of God Based on COVID.”
GW: You misquoted the title of my book! But anyway, the book title is not an oxymoron. It is just a shortened version of the claim fully explained in the book – “If God does exist, then God wants you to be an atheist.” If God did exist, then he would be perfectly rational. If he were perfectly rational, then he would want you to mimic or follow him and be rational too. And if you think rationally, then you will necessarily conclude that God himself does not exist. Read the book and you will understand it better.
RT: “The wisdom of of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness’” (1 Corinthians 3:19 NIV).
GW: Every verse in the Bible which asserts anything about God is false. We now know this. It has been proven by me and others that God does not exist. You have not found any error in the argument I presented to you. To see the published version of the argument, check out this reference hot off the presses:
Whittenberger, Gary. “Falsification of the God Hypothesis by COVID-19.”
Free Inquiry. Vol. 42, No. 5, August/September 2022, Pg. 34-40.
Print.
We’ve read your book, and this is why we can say, that the basic assertion of your book entitled: “God Wants You To Be An Atheist”, is, by your own admission, “If God does exist, then God wants you to be an atheist [therefore to not believe that he exists]”. This is not only an oxymoron, it is sheer nonsense!!!! God’s Word, the Bible, highlights the fact that God wants you to believe in him. For example, “There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe” (John 1:6,7 NIV). As the old saying goes, “Nonsense, even when uttered by highly intelligent people, is still nonsense.” And, as the scriptures so succinctly stated 2,000 years ago: “For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’ Where is the wise person? . . . Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe” (1 Corinthians 1:19-21 NIV). While the world thinks its wisdom is superior, and what is preached about the gospel is foolishness, God shows just how foolish worldly wisdom is, and how superior his wisdom is!
RT: We’ve read your book, and this is why we can say, that the basic assertion of your book entitled: “God Wants You To Be An Atheist”, is, by your own admission, “If God does exist, then God wants you to be an atheist [therefore to not believe that he exists]”. This is not only an oxymoron, it is sheer nonsense!!!!
GW: I am pleased that you have read my book. You may need to read it again, in addition to my two new published articles. However, the basic assertion is rational and correct.
RT: God’s Word, the Bible, highlights the fact that God wants you to believe in him.
GW: God’s Word does not exist because God does not exist. My word exists because I exit and have published a book with my word. I explained the logic of my assertion last time and you are just glossing over it, so I will repeat myself and maybe you will address the logic this time. If God did exist, he would perfectly rational. Agree? He would want us to be rational too, to the greatest extent possible. Agree? If we think rationally to the greatest degree possible then we inevitably conclude that God does not exist. Agree? So, even if God did exist, he would want us to conclude that he doesn’t exist. Agree?
RT: For example, “There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe” (John 1:6,7 NIV).
GW: It’s just a story. There is no good evidence that this ever happened. It is probably a fictional work. However, the light could be the Light of Reason. If God did exist, he would want you to think by the Light of Reason.
RT: As the old saying goes, “Nonsense, even when uttered by highly intelligent people, is still nonsense.”
GW: I am pleased that I don’t utter nonsense. I only utter what is rational and reasonable. For example, my Covid argument against the existence of God is perfectly rational. So far, nobody, even you, has found an error in it. You know you cannot find an error and that is why you avoid talking about it.
RT: And, as the scriptures so succinctly stated 2,000 years ago: “For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’ Where is the wise person? . . . Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe” (1 Corinthians 1:19-21 NIV).
GW: This is pure nonsense. If God did exist, he would approve of and encourage intelligence, wisdom, and philosophy in human beings. The verses you cited are simply mistaken. The author does not have a correct conception of the nature of God, if he did exist.
RT: While the world thinks its wisdom is superior,…
GW: Superior to what? There is no good evidence that there is any wisdom other than the wisdom of rational-thinking human beings.
RT: and what is preached about the gospel is foolishness, God shows just how foolish worldly wisdom is, and how superior his wisdom is!
GW: God does not exist. We now know this. It has been proven. My argument is just one proof among several. You have found no error in it. However, if God did exist, then his wisdom would be superior to your wisdom and God would be wise enough to know that he should prevent the Covid pandemic, unlike you.
“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are . . . my thoughts higher than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9 NIV, so God’s thoughts are more rational than ours are, “Let the wise listen and add to their learning.” “Get wisdom, get understanding” (Proverbs 1:4 NIV; 4:5 NIV). God wants us to think rationally, too! On the other hand, your assertion that “If God existed, then he would want us to believe that he does not exist,” as you continually assert in your book, is sheer nonsense on the face of it, and flies in the face of all the evidence. “This is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ” (1 John 3:23 NIV).
RT: “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are . . . my thoughts higher than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9 NIV, so God’s thoughts are more rational than ours are,
GW: Thoughts are either rational or they are not. It is rational to believe that God does not exist, and it is irrational to believe that he does. However, if God did exist, he would just be rational a greater percentage of the time than we would be. In fact, he would be rational 100% of the time. And so, he would want us to be rational to the greatest extent possible.
RT: “Let the wise listen and add to their learning.” “Get wisdom, get understanding” (Proverbs 1:4 NIV; 4:5 NIV). God wants us to think rationally, too!
GW: Yes, if God did exist, he would want us to think rationally. That’s what I said in my book.
RT: On the other hand, your assertion that “If God existed, then he would want us to believe that he does not exist,” as you continually assert in your book, is sheer nonsense on the face of it, and flies in the face of all the evidence.
GW: So, you actually agree with me up till the last step. I believe that when you think rationally, you come to the conclusion that God does not exist, but unfortunately you believe the opposite. The problem for you is that my argument is rational, and you have yet to find an error in it. And this is why you continue to evade it.
RT: “This is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ” (1 John 3:23 NIV).
GW: This is just the opinion of the author of the book of 1 John, whoever he was. It is a mistaken opinion. There are no good reasons to believe that Jesus was divine. As I have pointed out time and time again, there are no first-person author-identified eyewitness reports of anything Jesus said or did. All you have are these Gospel stories, unverified. I would accept that Jesus was divine if we had evidence that he performed three miracles, each one verified by a first-person author-identified eyewitness report. But you have none!
GW: But if God does not exist, then Jesus was not divine. We know that God does not exist. Therefore, Jesus was not divine. He was just a traveling minister of the 1st century. We have lots of those today.
In your book, “God Wants You To Be An Atheist”, you explain that the “God who doesn’t exist” is the Christian God referred to in the Bible. The theme of your book, “If this Christian God exists, he wants you to be an atheist”, is simply complete and total irrational nonsense!!!! “The foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom” (1 Corinthians 1:25 NIV). “Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in their own opinions” (Proverbs 18:2 NIV).
RT: In your book, “God Wants You To Be An Atheist”, you explain that the “God who doesn’t exist” is the Christian God referred to in the Bible.
GW: Please provide an exact quote by me from the book which you are trying to paraphrase, and then I will comment. I fear you are distorting what I said.
RT: The theme of your book, “If this Christian God exists, he wants you to be an atheist”, is simply complete and total irrational nonsense!!!!
GW: I strongly disagree. The theme is rational and correct. If you believe you have found an error in the reasoning, present it here and we can debate it.
RT: “The foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom” (1 Corinthians 1:25 NIV).
GW: “Foolishness of God”? What an irrational concept! If God did exist, he would have no foolishness. This author (was it Paul?) is just mistaken. What a fraud.
RT: “Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in their own opinions” (Proverbs 18:2 NIV).
GW: But wise persons not only find pleasure in understanding, they are delighted with their correct and rational opinions.
GW: You continue to evade my argument. I’m not too surprised. You have found no error in the argument and it is hard to admit that. But if you think you have found an error, present it for debate.
On page 13 of your book, “God Wants You To Be An Atheist,” you say: “My intention is to propose a definition of ‘God’ that, although not universally accepted, is agreeable to the vast majority of people who are followers of the Abrahamic religions, that is, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.” On page 15, you say: “According to the definition I have proposed . . . God is supremely authoritative . . . God’s word is final . . . God is everlasting . . . he has always and will always exist; he is eternal . . . it is impossible for him not to exist–he exists necessarily”. On page 17: “In the definition I have offered, this one God is the Creator of our universe.” On page 21: “the definition which I have presented in this chapter includes what I believe to be God’s essential features, as conceived by most Jews, Christians, and Muslims.” You have accurately described the God of the Bible. This God of the Bible gives witness of his existence to everyone on earth: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands . . . their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1,4 NIV). “The heavens proclaim his righteousness” (Psalm 50:6 NIV). Obviously, this God of the Bible wants everyone to believe in him! “Open the gates that the righteous nation may enter, the nation that keeps faith” (Isaiah 26:2 NIV). On page 211, you conclude the main part of your book by saying: “I put together the four-step argument which culminated in the final deduction that ‘If he exists, God wants YOU to be an atheist.'” The Biblical God that you describe in your book does not want people to be atheists. On the contrary, he is described as “God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of truth” (1 Timothy 2:3,4 NIV). Therefore, the very premise and theme of your book is sheer nonsense!!!! “A person who isn’t spiritual doesn’t accept the things of God’s Spirit, for they are nonsense to him. He can’t understand them because they are spiritually evaluated” (1 Corinthians 2:14 ISV).
RT: On page 13 of your book, “God Wants You To Be An Atheist,” you say: “My intention is to propose a definition of ‘God’ that, although not universally accepted, is agreeable to the vast majority of people who are followers of the Abrahamic religions, that is, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.”
GW: I confirm this to be an accurate quote.
RT: On page 15, you say: “According to the definition I have proposed . . . God is supremely authoritative . . . God’s word is final . . . God is everlasting . . . he has always and will always exist; he is eternal . . . it is impossible for him not to exist–he exists necessarily”.
GW: I confirm this to be an accurate quote too.
RT: On page 17: “In the definition I have offered, this one God is the Creator of our universe.”
GW: Confirmed.
RT: On page 21: “the definition which I have presented in this chapter includes what I believe to be God’s essential features, as conceived by most Jews, Christians, and Muslims.”
GW: Confirmed.
RT: You have accurately described the God of the Bible.
GW: I presented the standard definition of God which has roots in the Bible and Quran, but it has also been refined and improved over the last two thousand years. Some people have said that I left out God’s evil acts described in the Old Testament.
RT: This God of the Bible gives witness of his existence to everyone on earth: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands . . . their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1,4 NIV).
GW: Heavens and skies don’t talk. They don’t have voices or speak words. Here the author is just sharing his hypothesis that the existence of God can be inferred from observations of the universe. That is one of several hypotheses, the least likely. But in addition, we now know that God does not exist.
RT: “The heavens proclaim his righteousness” (Psalm 50:6 NIV).
GW: Heavens do not speak. But this hypothesis is just false. You can’t infer moral perfection from the skies.
RT: Obviously, this God of the Bible wants everyone to believe in him!
GW: I strongly disagree. If God wanted everyone to believe in him, then he would make himself obvious. He would present himself and his rules to live by in a current, universal, unequivocal, clear, and objective revelation. This has never occurred. And so we know that God does not exist.
RT: “Open the gates that the righteous nation may enter, the nation that keeps faith” (Isaiah 26:2 NIV).
GW: If God did exist, he would never judge nations. Instead, he would judge individual persons. The Bible is so primitive in its morality.
RT: On page 211, you conclude the main part of your book by saying: “I put together the four-step argument which culminated in the final deduction that ‘If he exists, God wants YOU to be an atheist.’”
GW: Confirmed.
RT: The Biblical God that you describe in your book does not want people to be atheists.
GW: I don’t use the words or the concept “the Biblical God.” Those are your words, not mine. If God did exist, he would want you and every human person to be an atheist. The argument is summarized succinctly at the top of page 38. Review that.
RT: On the contrary, he is described as “God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of truth” (1 Timothy 2:3,4 NIV).
GW: “Savior” is not part of the standard definition of God. If he did exist, because God would be perfectly rational and moral, he would present himself to the world in a way I described above. Who would then doubt that he exists? Ok, maybe a few people would doubt, like those who doubt that the world is round. God’s obvious revelation of himself and his rules for living to the people could be the door to a salvation. God would not be shy, deceptive, or hidden.
RT: Therefore, the very premise and theme of your book is sheer nonsense!!!!
GW: I strongly disagree. The premises, theme, and conclusions of the book are rational and correct. You have not found an error.
RT: “A person who isn’t spiritual doesn’t accept the things of God’s Spirit, for they are nonsense to him. He can’t understand them because they are spiritually evaluated” (1 Corinthians 2:14 ISV).
GW: There is no evidence for the existence of spirits, a spiritual world, or God’s Spirit. These are all superstitions. If God did exist, this would be obvious to all persons. Why? Because God would make himself obvious. That is what a perfectly rational and moral person would do!
On page 39 of your book, you say, “Your brain, the human brain, is a marvelous mechanism . . . the human brain . . . consists of an interconnected network of cells . . . which carry electrochemical messages . . . Without a doubt the human brain is a very complex organ . . . with an intellectual capacity greater than that of any other known species . . . responsible for our unique ability to intelligently adapt to changes in the environment.” This is all true! But why is it so? Could this “very complex organ” arise through undirected changes that began with non-living matter eventually evolving into such “a marvelous mechanism”? There is more chance for a computer’s various parts to have evolved from the original raw materials into a working modern computer, than for the “hundred thousand different kinds of neurons, each responsible for a different aspect of our mental life” to have evolved into a working brain. Even more complex than the human brain, is the human mind, you know, the one that has this marvelous ability to reason, use logic, develop laws of logic, and build on acquired knowledge over the years, etc. Where did this ability come from? Atheism has no answers. “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful. I know that full well” (Psalm 139:14 NIV). “God created mankind in his own image” (Genesis 1:27 NIV).
RT: On page 39 of your book, you say, “Your brain, the human brain, is a marvelous mechanism . . . the human brain . . . consists of an interconnected network of cells . . . which carry electrochemical messages . . . Without a doubt the human brain is a very complex organ . . . with an intellectual capacity greater than that of any other known species . . . responsible for our unique ability to intelligently adapt to changes in the environment.”
GW: The quote is correct, but it is on page 39, not 38.
RT: This is all true! But why is it so? Could this “very complex organ” arise through undirected changes that began with non-living matter eventually evolving into such “a marvelous mechanism”?
GW: Yes, it could, and it probably did! Furthermore, I think we will eventually find species with brains on other planets.
RT: There is more chance for a computer’s various parts to have evolved from the original raw materials into a working modern computer, than for the “hundred thousand different kinds of neurons, each responsible for a different aspect of our mental life” to have evolved into a working brain.
GW: I strongly disagree. Computers have not changed over time in the same ways that brains have. Brains have evolved, but computers have not.
RT: Even more complex than the human brain, is the human mind, you know, the one that has this marvelous ability to reason, use logic, develop laws of logic, and build on acquired knowledge over the years, etc.
GW: I disagree. The human mind cannot be more complex than the human brain on which it is completely dependent. Every thought in the human mind is associated with a neural pattern in the human brain. In recent experiments researchers have been able to fairly accurately predict what a person is thinking about just by observing the neural patterns.
RT: Where did this ability come from?
GW: Human intelligence is the product of evolution over millions of years.
RT: Atheism has no answers.
GW: Atheism is not a statement about the human brain. It is simply the lack of belief in any gods. However, most atheists do have beliefs about human intelligence. I gave you mine.
RT: “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful. I know that full well” (Psalm 139:14 NIV).
GW: What corresponds to “you” and “your” in this verse? I suspect the author intends for that to be God. But we now know that God does not exist. The concept might have served some useful function for ancient peoples, but it is now obsolete. We now have sound proofs that God does not exist. I have shown you one, in which you have found no error, yet.
RT: “God created mankind in his own image” (Genesis 1:27 NIV).
GW: Actually, it’s the opposite. Man created God in his own image. This is why God is depicted as a very advanced person, usually a male. All the authors of the Bible were very likely men.
The question was asked, “Could this complex organism arise through undirected changes that began with non-living matter eventually evolving into such a ‘marvelous mechanism?'” GW answered, “Yes, it could and probably did!” There is ZERO EVIDENCE that anything complex could arise through undirected changes that began with non-living matter evolving into any marvelous mechanism, or that life comes from non-life, nor is there any proof that automobiles and computers assemble themselves, or that houses, cities and highways arise without direction, or that eyesight and brains are the result of chance. The long-established truth, “Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything,” cannot be proven false” (Hebrews 3:4 NIV). Please see the “Infinite Monkey Theorem”, on Wikipedia.
RT: The question was asked, “Could this complex organism arise through undirected changes that began with non-living matter eventually evolving into such a ‘marvelous mechanism?’” GW answered, “Yes, it could and probably did!”
GW: Yes, that is a correct rendition of what we said.
RT: There is ZERO EVIDENCE that anything complex could arise through undirected changes that began with non-living matter evolving into any marvelous mechanism, or that life comes from non-life,…
GW: ZERO? No. The evidence in support of this hypothesis is the history of the Earth, gathered by the disciplines of biology, geology, chemistry, anthropology, etc.
GW: Let us reason together. “Undirected” means in the absence of direction, management, design, or production by an intelligent agent. We know that life on Earth began around 3.5 billion years ago. We know that at that time there were no intelligent agents living on the Earth. In fact, there were no animals at all. And yet, life began. We may conclude that probably the origin of life on Earth was undirected. If you disagree with this conclusion, then the burden of proof is on you to show that some intelligent agent from someplace else came to Earth and started life. It is possible that an alien or a god did this, but there is no good evidence in support of these hypotheses. Meanwhile, biologists and chemists are doing experiments to discover the process for the transformation of nonlife to life through natural processes. I am confident that eventually they will likely discover how it happened, and this could happen in our lifetimes. We may get to learn of the discovery.
RT: …nor is there any proof that automobiles and computers assemble themselves, or that houses, cities and highways arise without direction,…
GW: We already know that these objects are designed and produced by human beings.
RT: or that eyesight and brains are the result of chance.
GW: We know that chance was only part of the production process. Mutations in genes occur by chance. Mutations in genes produce variations in protein synthesis and variations in structure, function, and behavior of organisms. Some variations are positive, some are negative, and some are neutral with respect to survival, reproduction, and well being. Those organisms with negative variations die earlier than those with positive or neutral variations, and thus they reproduce less. So, in the population of organisms, those with the positive or neutral variations tend to predominate and reproduce. This is how evolution works. Brains and eyes evolved in this way. Evolution is a rather slow process, working over thousands, millions, or billions of years.
RT: The long-established truth, “Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything,” cannot be proven false” (Hebrews 3:4 NIV).
GW: The first part is only a metaphor, but the underlying assumption of it is that every complex object must have been designed and produced by an intelligent agent of some kind. We know that this is true for some things, like houses, cars, and computers, but we do not know that it is true for other things, like the first frogs, trees, human beings, and solar systems. And therefore, the claim of “every” is not supported.
GW: The second part has been proven to be false. We know that God was not the builder of everything because it has been proven that God does not exist at all. You still can’t hide from my argument.
RT: Please see the “Infinite Monkey Theorem”, on Wikipedia.
GW: I don’t need to see it. I am familiar with it. So what? It has no value for our discussion.
Thank your admitting that zero evidence has ever been discovered of any life coming from non-life. Even Richard Dawkins admits that the amount of information in a one-celled life (such as an amoeba) has as much information in its DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Brittanicas. Believing that such a huge amount of complex information came into existence without any intervention is like believing that an entire bookstore resulted from an explosion in a printing shop. Atheists’ faith in macro-evolution is astounding! “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1 NIV).
RT: Thank your admitting that zero evidence has ever been discovered of any life coming from non-life.
GW: That’s a false statement. Here is what I said about that: “ZERO? No. The evidence in support of this hypothesis is the history of the Earth, gathered by the disciplines of biology, geology, chemistry, anthropology, etc.”
RT: Even Richard Dawkins admits that the amount of information in a one-celled life (such as an amoeba) has as much information in its DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Brittanicas.
GW: That could be true, but so what? Amoebas surely were not the first life on the Earth. It is likely that the transition from no life to life was slow but steady. Some scientists have called it “chemical evolution.”
RT: Believing that such a huge amount of complex information came into existence without any intervention is like believing that an entire bookstore resulted from an explosion in a printing shop.
GW: That is an old Christian trope which has been fully discredited. Evolution works by saving information from earlier steps and adding to it. Evolution is a slow gradual process. On the Earth it took a billion years for nonlife to produce life, and then another 3.5 billion years for human persons to evolve from simple one-celled life. If you believe an intelligent agent was behind all this, produce the agent. You can’t. And we already know that God doesn’t exist.
RT: Atheists’ faith in macro-evolution is astounding!
GW: I am an atheist and I don’t have any faith. Macro-evolution is just regular evolution over long periods of time. Not a problem.
RT: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1 NIV).
GW: But the wise person says it aloud. You are still evading my argument, just dancing around on the perimeter.
Atheists’ and evolutionists’ “life evolved from non-life” entirely speculative assertion is supported by zero scientific proof. If you know of any such such “proof”, please cite it. Your spouting this off, does show that you do have “faith”, by your own definition of such, “blind belief without any proof”. Bible principles cause wise people to reject such credulity, “speculations”, or “godless chatter” (1 Timothy 1:4; 6:4 NIV; 2 Timothy 2:16 NIV). “Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives tales” (1 Timothy 4:7 NIV).
RT: Atheists’ and evolutionists’ “life evolved from non-life” entirely speculative assertion is supported by zero scientific proof. If you know of any such such “proof”, please cite it.
GW: I already cited the evidence to you, but you just don’t like it. We know that the Earth began about 4.5 billion years ago and life on Earth began about 3.5 billion years ago. Agree? We know that the elements on the Earth before life were the same as the elements in life after it occurred. Agree? Therefore, for now we may rationally assume that life came from nonlife through a natural process. Life is just the arrangement of nonliving molecules in a particular structure. This arrangement could be because of the bonding properties of molecules or chance or probably both. If you believe that God caused the origin of life on Earth, then the burden of proof falls on you. Present God in a meeting with you, me, and some of our friends at my apartment tomorrow at noon.
RT: Your spouting this off, does show that you do have “faith”, by your own definition of such, “blind belief without any proof”.
GW: That is not my definition of “faith,” and you know it. Please don’t distort my definitions. Quote or paraphrase me accurately. My belief in the natural emergence of life on Earth from nonliving molecules, while not certain, is proportional to the evidence we have. Your belief that life on Earth was specially created by God is not proportional to the evidence and is thus a statement of faith. Besides, we now know that God does not exist. I have presented one rational argument for this, and you keep evading it.
RT: Bible principles cause wise people to reject such credulity, “speculations”, or “godless chatter” (1 Timothy 1:4; 6:4 NIV; 2 Timothy 2:16 NIV).
GW: People who think rationally do not believe most Bible verses. For example any verse which says anything about God is false. We now know that God does not exist. You can’t use the Bible to prove the existence of God. That would be circular thinking.
RT: “Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives tales” (1 Timothy 4:7 NIV).
GW: Belief in God is an old wives’ tale. From several proofs by several persons, we now know that God does not exist. Why do you continue to evade my argument?
It is impossible for life to come come from non-life for a number of reasons. There are several kinds of epigenetic information that developmental biologists have identified. Building life requires: (1) DNA to make proteins; (2) Proteins to be organized into cell structures and cell types; (3) Cell types to be organized into tissues; (4) Tissue to be organized into organs; and (5) Organs and tissues to be organized into body parts. While DNA contributes to each of these five basic steps, epigenetic information is necessary to produce the higher-level biological structures of steps 2-5. DNA can’t do t alone. Epigentic information cannot be mutated in such a way as to produce new life-forms. Since DNA alone doesn’t entirely control body-plan formation, mutating DNA alone will never generate a new body plan. Even taking an infinite amount of time, such a macro-evolutionary process, as Darwinists espouse, will never happen. Building a new body plan requires both genetic and epigenetic information. The random mutations of so-called “natural selection” cannot, by themselves, account for the fictional life arising from non-life, that you espouse, and can be eliminated due to its impossibility. “The wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, ‘He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness'” (1 Corinthians 3:19 NLT).
RT: It is impossible for life to come come from non-life for a number of reasons.
GW: I strongly disagree, but I will “listen” to your reasons.
RT: There are several kinds of epigenetic information that developmental biologists have identified. Building life requires: (1) DNA to make proteins; (2) Proteins to be organized into cell structures and cell types; (3) Cell types to be organized into tissues; (4) Tissue to be organized into organs; and (5) Organs and tissues to be organized into body parts.
GW: Here you are describing the components of most current multi-celled living organisms, like frogs, dogs, and humans. The earliest life on Earth would be one-celled and have none of the components you have listed here, including DNA.
RT: While DNA contributes to each of these five basic steps, epigenetic information is necessary to produce the higher-level biological structures of steps 2-5. DNA can’t do t alone. Epigentic information cannot be mutated in such a way as to produce new life-forms.
GW: All of this is irrelevant to the emergence of life from nonlife on the primitive Earth. There would have been no DNA and no epigenetic information. You must think about what would be the most basic components of the simplest living organism. Ponder that.
RT: Since DNA alone doesn’t entirely control body-plan formation, mutating DNA alone will never generate a new body plan.
GW: You are talking here about evolution, not about abiogenesis. And mutating DNA can and does generate new “body plans.” I know there are no “plans” in the sense of an intelligent agent making a plan, but I know what you mean. You mean new body structures.
RT: Even taking an infinite amount of time, such a macro-evolutionary process, as Darwinists espouse, will never happen.
GW: Not only can it happen, it has happened. Evolution, micro or macro, is a fact. However, it is not necessarily relevant to the origin of life.
RT: Building a new body plan requires both genetic and epigenetic information.
GW: Define and explain “epigenetic information.” Present evidence that it is required for a new “body plan.” I don’t know why it would be.
RT: The random mutations of so-called “natural selection” cannot, by themselves, produce the fictional life arising from non-life, that you espouse, and can be eliminated due to its impossibility.
GW: You have not proven that it is impossible. Think again about this fact: Just before the origin of life on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago, there existed the same elements that there were in one-celled living organisms after the origin of life. Elements like carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. The origin of life would just require combining molecules in a particular way. I assert that this combining would have occurred naturally through molecule mixing, random interactions, and especially the inherent bonding properties of molecules of different elements. To give you just one example: H2O, i.e. water, consists of two molecules of hydrogen (not one or three) with one molecule of oxygen (not two or three). Why do we see that particular combination? Because of the inherent binding properties of these molecules! That’s just the way they are naturally! If you assert that God combined the molecules to form life, then you have to present God. Not only have you not done that, but we now know from various proofs that God does not exist.
RT: “The wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, ‘He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness’” (1 Corinthians 3:19 NLT).
GW: But unfortunately for all of us, God does not exist, as proven by my argument which you continue to evade. If God did exist, we would have a much better world – no Covid for one thing.
Your claim that “the earliest life on Earth would be one-celled and have none of the components you have listed here, including DNA,” is false. One-celled amoebas do have DNA now, and they would have had DNA when the earliest life on earth began. Spontaneous generation of life has never been observed. One of the most fundamental observations in all science is that life only comes from life. All experiments designed to spontaneously generate life have not only failed, but also suffer from the illegitimate application of intelligence. Scientists have intelligently contrived experiments, and still haven’t been able to do what we’re told that mindless natural laws have done. “O LORD [Yahweh], what a variety of things you have made! In wisdom you have made them all. The earth is full of your creatures” (Psalm 104:24 NLT). “Ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God” (Romans 1:20 NLT).
RT: Your claim that “the earliest life on Earth would be one-celled and have none of the components you have listed here, including DNA,” is false.
GW: I strongly disagree. My statement is true. Think about what features are necessary for life. DNA is certainly not one of them.
RT: One-celled amoebas do have DNA now, and they would have had DNA when the earliest life on earth began.
GW: The first life on Earth would have been one-celled, but it would not have been the amoeba. It would have been much simpler and without DNA.
RT: Spontaneous generation of life has never been observed.
GW: I agree, but we may rationally infer from the evidence I presented to you that it occurred at least once on the Earth. Keep in mind that God creating life out of nothing has never been observed either, and we can’t rationally infer that it did. In fact, we now know that God does not exist!
RT: One of the most fundamental observations in all science is that life only comes from life.
GW: But we may rationally infer that at one time on the Earth life came from nonlife. Otherwise, life would be eternal if every organism came from other organisms, and I am sure that you don’t believe that.
RT: All experiments designed to spontaneously generate life have not only failed, but also suffer from the illegitimate application of intelligence. Scientists have intelligently contrived experiments, and still haven’t been able to do what we’re told that mindless natural laws have done.
GW: Well, scientists are not going to catch life coming from nonlife in the wild! The best they can do is to create laboratory environments which they believe resemble the conditions on the Earth about 3.5 billion years ago and watch what happens. Nothing wrong with that. In these studies they have watched the formation of the “building blocks of life.” And so, I think that it is just a matter of time before they will be successful in producing the first life from nonlife in the lab. It might even happen during our lifetimes.
RT: “O LORD [Yahweh], what a variety of things you have made! In wisdom you have made them all. The earth is full of your creatures” (Psalm 104:24 NLT).
GW: This is just another claim based on an analogy to human construction. Present the Lord to us. You can’t.
RT: “Ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God” (Romans 1:20 NLT).
GW: The best reason (not an excuse) for not believing in God is my argument which you continue to evade. Even if some god did create our universe, this would not necessarily mean that he was all-powerful as God is alleged to be. So, the verse is false on the face of it.
GW: As I live my daily life and look around I see no direct, conclusive, or compelling evidence that God exists. I live my life as if God does not exist and it goes pretty well, in fact, as well or better than the lives of theists. In the Scandanavian countries, belief in God is lower but happiness and well being are higher compared to our own country. So, not only is God unnecessary, belief in God is unnecessary also.
“They had utterly transformed the reality of God into what was unreal, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25 NIV). You atheists have much more faith than we creationists do!!!! You asserted, “The first life on earth would have been . . . without DNA,” and “I think that it is just a matter of time before they will be successful introducing the first life from non life in the lab.” Life without DNA, and life from non-life are “unreal” impossibilities, because you’ve “transformed the reality of God,” and “served the creature rather than the Creator.”
RT: “They had utterly transformed the reality of God into what was unreal, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25 NIV).
GW: This verse is false since we now know that God does not exist, as shown by my argument which you continue to evade.
RT: You atheists have much more faith than we creationists do!!!!
GW: I won’t speak for other atheists, but as one atheist, I have no faith at all in anything.
RT: You asserted, “The first life on earth would have been . . . without DNA,”…
GW: That is the conclusion of almost all experts in the field of abiogenesis. See relevant quote below.
RT: and “I think that it is just a matter of time before they will be successful introducing the first life from non life in the lab.”
GW: That is just a prediction based on the prior success of scientists. No faith there.
RT: Life without DNA, and life from non-life are “unreal” impossibilities, because you’ve “transformed the reality of God,” and “served the creature rather than the Creator.”
GW: We now know that God does not exist, as shown by my argument which you continue to evade. You keep making God of the Gaps arguments. Where there is somewhat of a gap in our knowledge, you fill the gap with God on the basis of no evidence. For example, to the question “What caused the Big Bang?” for which there is a gap in our knowledge, you simply say “God did it.” And to the question “How did nonlife transform into life on the Earth 3.5 billion years ago?” for which there is still somewhat of a gap in our knowledge, you simply say “God did it.” This is how the God of the Gaps works.
GW: I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on abiogenesis. Here is the link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
GW: You can read the entire article for yourself, but I have abstracted the quotes most relevant to our discussion and presented them below. Please note that there is not a single mention of God or any other intelligent agent in the article as a probable designer or producer of life. Your hypothesis is considered frivolous by real scientists.
“In biology, abiogenesis…or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.”
“The study of abiogenesis aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life under conditions strikingly different from those on Earth today.”
“Researchers generally think that current life descends from an RNA world, although other self-replicating molecules may have preceded RNA.”
“The classic 1952 Miller–Urey experiment demonstrated that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of proteins, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth.”
“Although the LUCA lived over 4 billion years ago (Gya), researchers do not believe it was the first form of life. Earlier cells might have had a leaky membrane and been powered by a naturally-occurring proton gradient near a deep-sea white smoker hydrothermal vent.”
“The precursors to the development of a living cell like the LUCA are clear enough, if disputed in their details: a habitable world is formed with a supply of minerals and liquid water. Prebiotic synthesis creates a range of simple organic compounds, which are assembled into polymers such as proteins and RNA.”
“The advent of polymers that could replicate, store genetic information, and exhibit properties subject to selection was, it suggested, most likely a critical step in the emergence of prebiotic chemical evolution.[2] Those polymers derived, in turn, from simple organic compounds such as nucleobases, amino acids and sugars that could have been formed by reactions in the environment.[14][8][15][16] A successful theory of the origin of life must explain how all these chemicals came into being.”
“By the middle of the 19th century, spontaneous generation was considered disproven…Over time, the idea of abiogenesis has shifted from spontaneous generation to the origin of life.”
“All chemical elements except for hydrogen and helium derive from stellar nucleosynthesis. The basic chemical ingredients of life – the carbon-hydrogen molecule (CH), the carbon-hydrogen positive ion (CH+) and the carbon ion (C+) – were produced by ultraviolet light from stars.[85] Complex molecules, including organic molecules, form naturally both in space and on planets.”
“NASA studies of meteorites suggest that all four DNA nucleobases (adenine, guanine and related organic molecules) have been formed in outer space.”
“As early as the 1860s, experiments demonstrated that biologically relevant molecules can be produced from interaction of simple carbon sources with abundant inorganic catalysts.”
“Nucleobases like guanine and adenine can be synthesized from simple carbon and nitrogen sources like hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia.[114] Formamide produces all four ribonucleotides when warmed with terrestrial minerals. Formamide is ubiquitous in the Universe, produced by the reaction of water and HCN.”
“DNA and RNA components including uracil, cytosine and thymine can be synthesized under outer space conditions, using starting chemicals such as pyrimidine found in meteorites.”
“A protocell is a self-organized, self-ordered, spherical collection of lipids proposed as a stepping-stone to the origin of life.”
“The second law of thermodynamics requires that the universe move in a direction in which entropy increases, yet life is distinguished by its great degree of organization. Therefore, a boundary is needed to separate life processes from non-living matter.”
“Multiple sources of energy were available for chemical reactions on the early Earth. Heat from geothermal processes is a standard energy source for chemistry. Other examples include sunlight, lightning,[57] atmospheric entries of micro-meteorites,[144] and implosion of bubbles in sea and ocean waves.[145] This has been confirmed by experiments[146][147] and simulations.”
“The RNA world hypothesis describes an early Earth with self-replicating and catalytic RNA but no DNA or proteins.[152] Many researchers concur that an RNA world must have preceded the DNA-based life that now dominates.[153] However, RNA-based life may not have been the first to exist.”
“What sorrow awaits the false prophets who are following their own imaginations and have seen nothing at all” (Ezekiel 13:3 NIV). Similar to the “false prophets”, promoters of the abiogenesis myth “have seen nothing at all”, that is, all they have are “speculations” (1 Timothy 1:4 NIV), unsupported by facts. “Abiogenesis” is simply “spontaneous generation” recycled and repackaged, and was proven false by Louis Pasteur, and others, 150 years ago. The 1953 Urey-Miller experiment, and others, have demonstrated that highly intelligent scientists with all the best tools available to them in replicating what they think were conditions under which the first life on earth appeared, are still unable to produce life. And the proteins they did produce prove that intelligent design is required for even such simple protein production. As the Bible said 3,000 years ago, “The tongue of the wise adorns knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly” (Proverbs 15:2 NIV).
RT: “What sorrow awaits the false prophets who are following their own imaginations and have seen nothing at all” (Ezekiel 13:3 NIV).
GW: Christians are false prophets. They make prophesies of things which will never happen.
RT: Similar to the “false prophets”, promoters of the abiogenesis myth “have seen nothing at all”, that is, all they have are “speculations” (1 Timothy 1:4 NIV), unsupported by facts.
GW: The abiogenesis hypothesis is supported by facts. Apparently you haven’t read the article I sent you. God was not mentioned.
RT: “Abiogenesis” is simply “spontaneous generation” recycled and repackaged, and was proven false by Louis Pasteur, and others, 150 years ago.
GW: The article showed that those two ideas are separate hypotheses. The spontaneous generation hypothesis was disproved, but the abiogenesis hypothesis is supported by some facts and is still under study by real scientists.
RT: The 1953 Urey-Miller experiment, and others, have demonstrated that highly intelligent scientists with all the best tools available to them in replicating what they think were conditions under which the first life on earth appeared, are still unable to produce life.
GW: Yes, not yet. But the biochemists will succeed.
RT: And the proteins they did produce prove that intelligent design is required for even such simple protein production.
GW: False. They just set up conditions which they believed resembled the early Earth. They did not try to force molecules together one by one to produce life.
RT: As the Bible said 3,000 years ago, “The tongue of the wise adorns knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly” (Proverbs 15:2 NIV).
GW: Of course they are going to praise themselves and depreciate the competition, just like politicians.
GW: You are still evading my argument showing that God does not exist. Why? Because you have found no error in it and don’t want to admit this on your own forum. Why do you worship a god which deserves no worship? The imaginary god you worship would be either amoral or immoral, which means indifferent or malicious toward us, respectively. No moral god would allow Covid.
By your own admission, abiogenesis is a hypothesis, which has never been proven.
Yes, it is! I never said it was proven. I believe that it is probably true since there is some evidence to support it and no other hypothesis is as good.
But “God does not exist” has been proven. You continue to evade the arguments for this conclusion and you waste your time presenting various God of the Gaps arguments. You speculate “Since scientists do not yet know how nonlife became life, God must have done it.” That’s classic God of the Gaps.
The upshot is that you believe that an unproven hypothesis is true despite the fact that abiogenesis (camouflaged “spontaneous generation”) has been proven false.
You are misunderstanding the science. I believe the unproven hypothesis of abiogenesis is probably true and will be proven true in the future. Nothing wrong with that. You are contradicting yourself — first saying that the hypothesis is “unproven” and then saying the hypothesis is “proven false.” Do you see that contradiction? That means that you are thinking irrationally on this point. Also, abiogenesis is not “camouflaged spontaneous generation.” This was made clear in the Wikipedia article. If you don’t understand the difference, ask me and I will explain it to you.
We don’t misunderstand– you do!!! Abiogenesis is not only unproven to be true, it has, in fact, been proven to be false, by Pasteur and others. “God created the great sea creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kind” (Genesis 1:21 NIV). This cannot be disproven, but biogenesis has.
RT: We don’t misunderstand– you do!!!
GW: False. You have misunderstood the science.
RT: Abiogenesis is not only unproven to be true, it has, in fact, been proven to be false, by Pasteur and others.
GW: No, you are misreading the article. Go back to the beginning. You are not comprehending the meaning of “abiogenesis.” Here is the quote again: “In biology, abiogenesis…or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.”
RT: “God created the great sea creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kind” (Genesis 1:21 NIV). This cannot be disproven, but biogenesis has.
GW: I have proven that God does not exist. You have found no error in my argument.
“Much dreaming and many words are meaningless. Therefore fear God” (Ecclesiastes 5:7 NIV). The definition of “abiogenesis”, which you quote, is not misunderstood by us, as you assert, but is simply “spontaneous generation,” recycled and repackaged. It’s the same old unproven “hypothesis,” that is, that “life has arisen from non-living matter,” per your quote. Go back and re-read your quote!!!!! “In their own eyes they flatter themselves too much to detect . . . their sin” (Psalm 36:2 NIV). You are the one with the mental block, due to your atheistic bias, to this simple fact. “There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9 NIV).
RT: “Much dreaming and many words are meaningless. Therefore fear God” (Ecclesiastes 5:7 NIV).
GW: Yes, the first part is true. Belief in God is meaningless since we now know God does not exist. You continue to evade my argument.
RT: The definition of “abiogenesis”, which you quote, is not misunderstood by us, as you assert, but is simply “spontaneous generation,” recycled and repackaged.
GW: Let’s look at some Wikipedia entries on “spontaneous generation” to see how they compare:
“Spontaneous generation is a superseded scientific theory that held that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular. It was hypothesized that certain forms, such as fleas, could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh. The doctrine of spontaneous generation was coherently synthesized by Aristotle, who compiled and expanded the work of earlier natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations for the appearance of organisms. Spontaneous generation was taken as scientific fact for two millennia.”
GW: And here is a critical quote: “Rejection of spontaneous generation is no longer controversial among biologists. By the middle of the 19th century, experiments by Pasteur and others were considered to have disproven the traditional theory of spontaneous generation. Attention has turned instead to the origin of life, since all life seems to have evolved from a single form around four billion years ago.”
GW: It is easy to see how the concepts are similar and different. Like the hypothesis of special creation by God, the hypothesis of spontaneous generation has been disproved, but the hypothesis of abiogenesis is still being tested. There is some evidence in support of it, but it is not yet conclusive.
RT: It’s the same old unproven “hypothesis,” that is, that “life has arisen from non-living matter,” per your quote. Go back and re-read your quote!!!!!
GW: Read all the quotes I have provided you, and then you will see the similarities and differences of the two hypotheses. Your pet hypothesis, i.e. special creation by God, is the idea that God caused the origin of life on Earth from nothing, i.e. “Ex nihilo.” This has been disproven. It even contradicts your own conclusion that something cannot come from nothing.
RT: “In their own eyes they flatter themselves too much to detect . . . their sin” (Psalm 36:2 NIV).
GW: It is no sin to discover and declare the truth.
RT: You are the one with the mental block, due to your atheistic bias, to this simple fact.
GW: On this point I have no mental block or bias. We know that God does not exist. Your mental block causes you to evade my argument. I’ve been challenging you to a specific debate on my argument for months, but you just run the other way.
RT: “There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9 NIV).
GW: Well, this is just false. Since the author wrote this, new things under the sun include: gunpowder, cell phones, washing machines, spaceships, computers, the discovery that God does not exist. There are many more.
Look at the contradiction in the beliefs you espouse. “Attention has turned to the origin of life, since all life seems to have evolved from a single form around four billion years ago.” The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved the formation of habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.” These two statements contradict each other, one saying ‘all life evolved from a single form,’ and the saying ‘there was not a single event.’ In any case, biogenesis is simply glorified, dressed up, ‘spontaneous generation,’ using some different words, but each saying basically the same thing, namely that life came from non-life. Scientific experiments have prove that life can only come from life, not non-life. As the Bible said 3,000 years ago: “You [Yahweh God] are the source of all life” (Psalm 36:9 GNB).
RT: Look at the contradiction in the beliefs you espouse.
GW: What contradiction?
RT: “Attention has turned to the origin of life, since all life seems to have evolved from a single form around four billion years ago.” The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved the formation of habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.” These two statements contradict each other, one saying ‘all life evolved from a single form,’ and the saying ‘there was not a single event.’
GW: These aren’t my statements, but I think they are probably correct. There would have been a series of events in the transformation of nonliving molecules to a first organism. Each event would build on the one before. Where is the contradiction?
RT: any case, biogenesis is simply glorified, dressed up, ‘spontaneous generation,’ using some different words, but each saying basically the same thing, namely that life came from non-life.
GW: You have correctly identified the similarity of the two hypotheses, but failed to identify the differences. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that about 3.5-4 billion years ago in a series of steps nonliving molecules combined under the right conditions to produce the first living organism. Modern tests of this hypothesis try to duplicate the “right conditions,” but so far scientists have not been successful in producing life in this manner. Eventually they will succeed. Spontaneous generation was the hypothesis that life will emerge from complex nonliving molecules, like a piece of raw meat. People like Pasteur sterilized and isolated meat to show that life would not come from it. In test of abiogenesis, on the other hand, simple molecules believed to be prevalent on the early Earth are used as the starting point.
RT: Scientific experiments have prove that life can only come from life, not non-life.
GW: False. Your mistaken words are “can only come.” But it is the case that so far scientists have not performed an experiment in which life came from nonlife, but this does not mean that life CAN’T come from nonlife. It almost certainly did about 3.5 billion years ago. You too easily interpret what has or has not been done into what can and can’t be done.
RT: As the Bible said 3,000 years ago: “You [Yahweh God] are the source of all life” (Psalm 36:9 GNB).
GW: This verse is certainly false since we now know that God does not exist. Let’s have a debate about my argument on that point, ok?
GW: Here is a pretty good video on abiogenesis which I recommend to you:
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrXpnTXvQNjnz0ARwsPxQt.;_ylu=Y29sbwNncTEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3BpdnM-?p=abiogenesis&type=ud-c-us–s-p-era3edek–exp-none–subid-none¶m1=vr5vearya8e0zmcetxvhchny&hsimp=yhs-040&hspart=infospace&ei=UTF-8&fr=yhs-infospace-040#id=3&vid=1c2e635513469a7ef0b9ba5bfc27ea22&action=view
You are overlooking the fact that both the “spontaneous generation” and “abiogenesis” hypotheses assert that life came from non-life. Life coming from non-life has never been observed, nor has it been ever demonstrated, in spite of numerous attempts to do so.
RT: You are overlooking the fact that both the “spontaneous generation” and “abiogenesis” hypotheses assert that life came from non-life.
GW: False. I said “You have correctly identified the similarity of the two hypotheses, but failed to identify the differences.”
RT: Life coming from non-life has never been observed, nor has it been ever demonstrated, in spite of numerous attempts to do so.
GW: That is correct. However, it is the best proposed explanation for the origin of life on the Earth roughly 3.5 billion years ago. Your pet explanation is certainly false since God does not exist, as demonstrated by my argument which you continue to evade. Follow the science.
You would do well to read the online article in TIME, dated 4-27-2014, entitled “Why Science Does not Disprove the Existence of God”. It points out that there are far, far too many complexities, “lucky accidents”, etc., that resulted in the birth and development of the universe, and eventually life on earth, to discount the existence of such an outside intelligence and force as an Almighty God. Neither science, nor anything, or anyone else, can disprove the truth of Hebrews 3:4, “Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything” (NIV), so your assertion that you’ve disproved the existence of God is false. In fact, just as the existence of a house gives evidence of the existence of its builder, the discoveries of science give us overwhelming evidence of “the Lord God Almighty” who “created all things” (Revelation 4:8,11 NIV). Science has also demonstrated that life comes from life, that all living things reproduce “each according to its kind”, just as the Bible stated in Genesis 1:24 (NIV).
RT: You would do well to read the online article in TIME, dated 4-27-2014, entitled “Why Science Does not Disprove the Existence of God”.
GW: I will read it, if I can find it online. Otherwise, I will request that you send me a copy via email. Also, science by itself does not disprove the existence of God, but along with philosophy, it does. See my argument which combines the two.
RT: It points out that there are far, far too many complexities, “lucky accidents”, etc., that resulted in the birth and development of the universe, and eventually life on earth, to discount the existence of such an outside intelligence and force as an Almighty God.
GW: To assume that there was a “birth” of the universe is begging the question. As you well know, if the universe is eternal, then there was no birth. Favorable and unfavorable accidents do occur, especially when given sufficient time. But we now know that God does not exist, not because he is not needed, but because of the sound arguments against his existence.
RT: Neither science, nor anything, or anyone else, can disprove the truth of Hebrews 3:4, “Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything” (NIV), so your assertion that you’ve disproved the existence of God is false.
GW: The verse Hebrews 3:4 is false. Unfortunately the author is not here to defend his conclusion. But I am here to defend my conclusion. I have presented a fully rational argument that God does not exist, and so far, nobody has found an error in it, even though over a hundred people have tried. So far, you haven’t found an error in it and you are even afraid to debate it. Until somebody demonstrates an error in it, I stand by the conclusion – God does not exist.
RT: In fact, just as the existence of a house gives evidence of the existence of its builder, the discoveries of science give us overwhelming evidence of “the Lord God Almighty” who “created all things” (Revelation 4:8,11 NIV).
GW: You are just presenting the design argument which has been repeatedly refuted. It is just based on an analogy that goes like this: 1. Human beings construct houses, machines, etc. 2. The objects of nature must have been constructed by someone like human beings. 3. Therefore, God exists and was that someone. Of course, premise #2 is just an assertion for which there is no good evidence. You would need to present God or he would need to present himself to the world. No such event has occurred. And now there are many proofs that God does not exist. End of game.
RT: Science has also demonstrated that life comes from life, that all living things reproduce “each according to its kind”, just as the Bible stated in Genesis 1:24 (NIV).
GW: The living things which have been investigated have all come from other living things either through asexual or sexual reproduction. However, these living things do not include the first living thing on the Earth. Most biochemists and biologists believe this first living thing came from specific nonliving molecules under specific conditions, not yet well understood.
GW: Fortunately, I was able to find your cited Time article on the internet, and so now I will conduct a careful review of it. “AA” stands for “ AMIR D. ACZEL” who wrote the article.
AA: number of recent books and articles would have you believe that—somehow—science has now disproved the existence of God.
GW: Now in 2022, by using both science and philosophy, many persons have disproved the existence of God. (The Time article was written eight years ago, and is thus not up to date.)
AA: We know so much about how the universe works, their authors claim, that God is simply unnecessary: we can explain all the workings of the universe without the need for a Creator.
GW: While that claim is true, i.e. we don’t need God as an explanation, by itself this doesn’t disprove God. More is needed, and more has been provided.
AA: In physics and cosmology, we can now claim to know what happened to our universe as early as a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, something that may seem astounding.
GW: Notice that he doesn’t say anything about BEFORE the Big Bang. Why? Because we don’t know anything about that, yet. But you and the Bible authors claim to know something about it, when you know nothing about it. You are not physicists or cosmologists.
AA: But does this vast knowledge base [of biochemistry and biology] disprove the existence of some kind of pre-existent outside force that may have launched our universe on its way?
GW: This is a straw man argument since no reputable scientist claims that this particular knowledge base rules out the existence of God. We know that God does not exist for other reasons.
AA: These discoveries [in biology] lent strong support to the then emerging theory of evolution, published by Charles Darwin in 1859.
GW: And they lend a strong argument against the old theory of special creation by God, as claimed in Genesis. If evolution is true, then special creation is false. Evolution is true. Therefore, special creation is false.
AA: Geological discoveries made over the same century devastated the “young earth” hypothesis. We now know that earth is billions, not thousands, of years old, as some theologians had calculated based on counting generations back to the biblical Adam.
GW: Calculation of the age of the Earth and universe from Genesis has been soundly refuted. And so, we know that even if God did exist (he doesn’t), the Bible cannot and is not the word of God. God would not lie or mislead people, if he existed.
AA: But has modern science, from the beginning of the 20th century, proved that there is no God, as some commentators now claim?
GW: As I said above, science alone has not disproved the existence of God. However, science has disproved the existence of the Christian god. This was done in this famous study:
Benson, Herbert, Jeffery A Dusek, Jane B. Sherwood, Peter Lam, Charles F. Bethea,
William Carpenter, Sidney Levitsky, Peter C. Hill, Donald W. Clem, Manoj K. Jain, David Drumel, Stephen L. Kopecky, Paul S. Mueller, Dean Marek, Sue Rollins, Patricia L. Hibbard. “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in Cardiac Bypass Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Uncertainty and Certainty of Receiving Intercessory Prayer.” American Heart Journal 151.4 (2006): 934-42. Print.
You may read about this study in Chapter 15 of my book “God Wants YOU to be an Atheist.” If you have any questions about the study, just ask me.
AA: But it [science] has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth in the Big Bang.
GW: The author is begging the question. We don’t even know that “the universe came into existence.” In fact, now many cosmologists believe the universe is eternal. I cited four such physicists to you previously, but you continue to disregard them.
AA: Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter…
GW: I disagree. We now have some understanding of how it likely happened, but our understanding is incomplete. My prediction: Scientists will show how the first life was produced from nonlife within at least the next 50 years.
AA: Neither does it [biological evoluation] explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things?
GW: I disagree. Consciousness, being helpful to survival and reproduction, would have been “naturally selected.”
AA: Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from?
GW: They come from big and complex brains, of course.
AA: What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine?
GW: Two things allow them – the inherent orderliness of the universe and our big and complex brains.
AA: But much more important than these conundrums is the persistent question of the fine-tuning of the parameters of the universe: Why is our universe so precisely tailor-made for the emergence of life?
GW: To invoke fine-tuning is again to beg the question. It unnecessarily assumes that the parameters could have been different from what they are and that some intelligent agent, like God, selected them to produce life. This is bogus. The parameters also enable a universe very hostile to life and one which will eventually destroy all life! If God existed and created life, he would have done a much better job.
AA: This question has never been answered satisfactorily, and I believe that it will never find a scientific solution.
GW: Fine tuning has been soundly refuted by many authors, including me. See pages 83-88 of my book, cited above.
AA: Why are even the tiniest particles of matter so unbelievably complicated?
GW: Maybe they could not have been otherwise. Maybe that is just a brute fact.
AA: It appears that there is a vast, hidden “wisdom,” or structure, or knotty blueprint for even the most simple-looking element of nature.
GW: Structure, yes. Wisdom, no. Blueprint, no.
AA: We know that 13.7 billion years ago, a gargantuan burst of energy, whose nature and source are completely unknown to us and not in the least understood by science, initiated the creation of our universe.
GW: Probably not “creation,” but probably transformation of our universe. The universe is very probably eternal, and I have given you three good reasons for that. You even strongly agreed with one – something cannot come from nothing.
AA: Then suddenly, as if by magic, the “God particle”—the Higgs boson discovered two years ago inside CERN’s powerful particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider—came into being and miraculously gave the universe its mass.
GW: There is no good evidence for God or miracles. Mr. Higgs who first hypothesized the key particle opposed calling it “the God particle.” It is now properly known as “the Higgs Boson.”
AA: For from within the primeval soup of elementary particles that constituted the young universe, again as if by a magic hand, all the quarks suddenly bunched in threes to form protons and neutrons, their electrical charges set precisely to the exact level needed to attract and capture the electrons, which then began to circle nuclei made of the protons and neutrons.
GW: There was no magic hand. There was no “set precisely.” There is no evidence to support the existence of an intelligent agent in these processes.
AA: All of the masses, charges and forces of interaction in the universe had to be in just the precisely needed amounts so that early light atoms could form.
GW: Victor Stenger, who was a physicist who is now deceased, showed that the conditions did not have to be precise.
AA: Why did everything we need in order to exist come into being?
GW: That’s just the way it was. But also it enabled a universe mostly hostile to life and a universe which will eventually extinguish all life. So, we are not as lucky as you and the author think. In fact, if God did exist, the universe would be more hospitable to life, even to us.
AA: How was all of this possible without some latent outside power to orchestrate the precise dance of elementary particles required for the creation of all the essentials of life?
GW: It was possible because of the eternal and intrinsic property of orderliness. No orchestrator was needed.
AA: The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe—that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123.
GW: This calculation is irrational. I tell why in my book, pages 83-88. Also, with different values of the parameters there may have arisen a different form of life from what we are familiar.
AA: The scientific atheists have scrambled to explain this troubling mystery by suggesting the existence of a multiverse—an infinite set of universes, each with its own parameters. In some universes, the conditions are wrong for life; however, by the sheer size of this putative multiverse, there must be a universe where everything is right.
GW: The majority of cosmologists today favor the multiverse hypothesis.
AA: So the purely hypothetical multiverse does not solve the problem of God.
GW: Yes it does. God would not be needed to select the different parameters of different universes. A random generator could even do it.
AA: The incredible fine-tuning of the universe presents the most powerful argument for the existence of an immanent creative entity we may well call God.
GW: If that argument is the most powerful, then the God hypothesis is doomed.
AA: Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by.
GW: But one side of the coin is the winning side, and it is science.
AA: Let’s keep them that way, and not let one attempt to usurp the role of the other.
GW: Science has already usurped religion. Science is based in reason, while religion is based in faith. They are opposites.
GW: Thanks for the opportunity to review the article. I have refuted its main points.
Thank you for publishing and reviewing this fine article, which is, by the way, very up to date. Your denial of scientific discoveries which you don’t like is astounding. No offense, but Proverbs 18:2 comes to mind: “Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions” (NIV).
RT: Thank you for publishing and reviewing this fine article, which is, by the way, very up to date.
GW: You are welcome. The article is neither fine nor up to date, as I have shown in the review.
RT: Your denial of scientific discoveries which you don’t like is astounding.
GW: Identify what you believe to be one scientific discovery which you believe I deny, and we can debate that. The problem is that you call some hypotheses “discoveries” when they are not.
RT: No offense, but Proverbs 18:2 comes to mind: “Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions” (NIV).
GW: I’m pleased that neither of us is a fool. The verse does not apply to us.
Some scientifically proven discoveries which you deny are: “The universe came into existence.” “The creation of the universe.” “All of the masses, charges and forces of interaction in the universe had to be in just the precisely needed amounts so that early light atoms could form.”
RT: Some scientifically proven discoveries which you deny are: “The universe came into existence.”
GW: That is not a discovery. Nobody knows that the universe came into existence. That is just speculation. I believe that the universe never came into existence but is eternal. And I gave you three reasons for that belief. You even agreed with one of the three.
RT: “The creation of the universe.”
GW: That’s the same claim. See above.
RT: “All of the masses, charges and forces of interaction in the universe had to be in just the precisely needed amounts so that early light atoms could form.”
GW: That has been disproven by physicist Victor Stenger and others. The range of values may be narrow, but need not be precise. The values in the same range have produced a universe mostly hostile to life and eventually destructive to all life. If God did exist, that would not have been his design. He would have been supremely intelligent, perfectly rational, and perfectly moral. The universe we see is not consistent with that God.
GW: Therefore, you have presented no scientific discoveries which I have denied. But I’ll present one which you have denied — evolution. Another one would be that the death of the brain means the permanent extinction of consciousness and personal identity.
Science has discovered there was a beginning of the universe, which they call the “Big Bang,” and that the universe has been continually expanding since this beginning. Sadly, you remain in denial of these scientific facts. Science has simply confirmed what the Bible said 2,800 years ago: “This is what God the LORD [Yahweh] says–the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out, who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it” (Isaiah 42:5 NIV). Also, no one doubts Micro-evolution, that is, the variances within the “kinds” that God created (Genesis 1:11,24). However, Macro-evolution (Darwinism) has never been observed, nor demonstrated, and thus is a widely asserted theory in search of supporting facts, of which, there are none! “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendent sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion” (Gareth Nelson, of the American Museum of Natural History in New York).
RT: Science has discovered there was a beginning of the universe, which they call the “Big Bang,” and that the universe has been continually expanding since this beginning.
GW: You keep repeating this error and I keep refuting it. You are claiming that science has discovered things which it has not discovered. You continue to present your speculations (or those of others) as if they were facts, and that is intellectual dishonesty.
GW: The Big Bang was an event of transition and expansion which occurred about 13.7 billion years ago. You, I, and nobody else knows what happened before the Big Bang, if anything. It is still a mystery. Do some research without cherry picking.
RT: Sadly, you remain in denial of these scientific facts.
GW: In this post and many others you haven’t presented any scientific facts! You have just presented speculations that you WISH to be true, such as “God caused the Big Bang.” We do know that is false since we know that God does not exist. My argument and several others prove it. You have found no error in the argument, and you even refuse to debate it. Don’t be afraid. Learn the truth, and the truth shall set you free!
RT: Science has simply confirmed what the Bible said 2,800 years ago: “This is what God the LORD [Yahweh] says–the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out, who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it” (Isaiah 42:5 NIV).
GW: False. Science and philosophy have now demonstrated that God does not exist. See my argument for a good example of this.
GW: Also, you continue to present the old Design Argument for the Existence of God which has been soundly refuted many times by me and others. It is based on an analogy which goes something like this:
1. Intelligent agents, i.e. human persons, construct buildings and machines which are orderly and complex.
2. There are orderly and complex objects in the universe which surely must have been constructed by one or more intelligent agents similar to human persons.
3. The intelligent agent constructing these objects must have been God.
Premise #1 is true. Premise #2 is false or unproven. And the conclusion at #3 is also false or unproven. There is no good evidence in support of #2. But even if #2 were true, the responsible intelligent agent could be an advanced alien or a god besides God or the favorite lesser god which you believe in. (Your god is lesser since it is not perfectly moral.)
RT: Also, no one doubts Micro-evolution, that is, the variances within the “kinds” that God created (Genesis 1:11,24).
GW: False. Evolution in the gradual change in species caused by mutation, reproduction, and natural selection. God had nothing to do with it because God does not exist, as we now know.
RT: However, Macro-evolution (Darwinism) has never been observed, nor demonstrated, and thus is a widely asserted theory in search of supporting facts, of which, there are none!
GW: Macro-evolution is just regular evolution with large changes over a long periods of time. Evolution is a fact, the most important fact in all of biology.
RT: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendent sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion” (Gareth Nelson, of the American Museum of Natural History in New York).
GW: Fossils are from individual organisms. All fossils, skeletons, and living organisms are part of the total record of evolution. Even you are part of that record. Evolution continues and will never stop as long as there are living things.
GW: This reminds me of another strong argument against the existence of God which goes something like this:
1. By the Second Law of Thermodynamics total entropy increases over time.
2. Due to this increasing entropy life will one day become impossible and will be extinguished.
3. If God did exist, because of his nature he would never create a universe with a destiny of the extinction of all life.
4. But we now live in a universe with that destiny.
5. Therefore, God does not exist.
GW: I challenge you to a debate of my main argument regarding God and Covid. Don’t be afraid. Learn the truth, and the truth shall set you free!
“The images he makes are a fraud”—Jeremiah 10:14; 51:17 NIV
“The universe confounds me! I cannot imagine that such a ‘clock’ can exist without there being a Clockmaker” (Voltaire). The universe began in a highly ordered state with the “Big Bang”, and has remained in a highly ordered state today. This fact itself proves there is an All-powerful outside intelligence and force working against entropy by keeping the universe in its highly ordered state (Isaiah 40:26). “Many scientists did not like the idea that the universe had a beginning, a moment of creation” (Stephen Hawking). Regarding Darwinian evolution: “Despite the comforting certainty of textbooks and 150 years of argument, the true relationships of the major groups (phyla) of animals remains contentious” (Evolutionary biologists Martin Jones and Mark Blaxter, 2004). Regarding German Darwinist Earnst Haeckel’s faked drawings in support of Darwinism, “It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology” (Michael K Richardson, in Science, 1997). “We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks” (Stephen Jay Gould, in Natural History, 2000).
RT: “The images he makes are a fraud”—Jeremiah 10:14; 51:17 NIV
GW: The images which the Genesis author makes are superstitions.
RT: “The universe confounds me! I cannot imagine that such a ‘clock’ can exist without there being a Clockmaker” (Voltaire).
GW: But it is so easy to imagine that the universe had no designer and creator. Voltaire was a skeptic in his time. Read some of his writings against Leibnitz’s idea that we live in “the best of all possible worlds.” Voltaire wrote assertively against the church. But he was not yet free from the religious constraints.
RT: The universe began in a highly ordered state with the “Big Bang”, and has remained in a highly ordered state today.
GW: This is half true. A new PHASE of the probably eternal universe began with the Big Bang. In the sense that there are fixed regular processes in the universe, described by “natural laws,” the universe has remained ordered. However, in another sense it has not. Keep in mind that entropy is increasing, which is in another sense order in decline.
RT: This fact itself proves there is an All-powerful outside intelligence and force working against entropy by keeping the universe in its highly ordered state (Isaiah 40:26).
GW: It certainly does not prove any such thing! First, you have misstated the facts. (See above for the needed correction and clarification.) Secondly, maintenance of the universe by God is only one of several hypotheses which could explain the facts, but it is not even the most likely hypothesis. Furthermore, it has been proven by my argument and others that God does not even exist!
RT: “Many scientists did not like the idea that the universe had a beginning, a moment of creation” (Stephen Hawking).
GW: Hawking later said:
“Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by `we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”
“We are each free to believe what we want and it is my view that the simplest explanation is there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization. There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that, I am extremely grateful.”
RT: Regarding Darwinian evolution: “Despite the comforting certainty of textbooks and 150 years of argument, the true relationships of the major groups (phyla) of animals remains contentious” (Evolutionary biologists Martin Jones and Mark Blaxter, 2004).
GW: So what? This is not a refutation of evolution. Evolution is a fact. Check with the consensus of experts. Read some good books on evolution. I can provide you with recommendations. I think I alreadydid.
RT: Regarding German Darwinist Earnst Haeckel’s faked drawings in support of Darwinism, “It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology” (Michael K Richardson, in Science, 1997).
GW: So what? Were his drawings just mistaken or were they fakes? It doesn’t really matter. Within any pool of experts, there will always be a few which are mistaken and/or dishonest. Evolution is a fact. Get used to it. Unfortunately for you, this fact means that Genesis is wrong and the Bible is not the “infallible word of God.”
RT: “We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks” (Stephen Jay Gould, in Natural History, 2000).
GW: If Gould said the Haeckel drawings were mistaken or fake, I believe Gould. It doesn’t matter to the big picture. Evolution is a fact. Deal with it. Evolution contradicts the view of the origin of species presented in Genesis.
GW: You are still evading my challenge to you to debate my argument. If the God and Covid argument is too difficult for you, I can present another argument for your consideration.
The observed expansion of the universe at precisely the critical rate needed to keep its very complex structures in place (i.e., galaxies) is just more evidence of the existence of its designer, Creator and controller. What is very telling about your quote of Hawking, who loudly proclaims his denial of God, is his candid admission about admiring “the grand design of the universe.” It is a no-brainer, in fact, it is a truism, that design, by definition, requires a designer. Even geniuses sometimes say stupid things! “He catches the wise in their craftiness” (Job 5:13; 1 Corinthians 3:19 NIV).
RT: The observed expansion of the universe at precisely the critical rate needed to keep its very complex structures in place (i.e., galaxies) is just more evidence of the existence of its designer, Creator and controller.
GW: This is only about half true. The universe is expanding. There is a range of rates of expansion within which galaxies would be formed. There is no one “precise rate” for this. “God created the universe out of nothing” is just one of several hypotheses to account for the universe and is the most unlikely. In addition, it has been proven that God does not exist.
GW: You should also keep in mind that if the universe continues to expand, then life will become impossible and all life will be extinguished. This is not the kind of universe which God would have designed and created, if he did exist. But you worship a lesser god – Tuckergod or OT god.
RT: What is very telling about your quote of Hawking, who loudly proclaims his denial of God, is his candid admission about admiring “the grand design of the universe.”
GW: Later in life Hawking dropped the “design talk.” In addition, he meant the orderly nature of the universe and never said that this orderliness was caused by God. Hawking completely refuted your worldview.
RT: It is a no-brainer, in fact, it is a truism, that design, by definition, requires a designer.
GW: Yes, I agree, but Hawking did not say what he meant. And then, later in life he dropped the design talk. Another possibility is that he was referring to the “appearance of design” rather than the reality of design. Even Richard Dawkins sometimes says that life “appears” to be designed, but we know what he means if we read enough of his books and articles.
RT: Even geniuses sometimes say stupid things!
GW: I would call Hawking’s referral to design as a mistake, not a “stupid thing.” He was a genius though. Have some respect.
RT: “He catches the wise in their craftiness” (Job 5:13; 1 Corinthians 3:19 NIV).
GW: To whom does “he” refer? Of course, it refers to God. And so we know the verse is false because God does not exist. You are still evading my argument.
You’re the one who quoted atheist Hawking admiring “the grand design of the universe,” as evidence of atheism. Neither you, nor he, could see the fallacy of such wording. “Design of the universe” means, by definition, and by implication, that there is a designer of the universe. The extreme complexities in the universe could not exist without a designer. It is nonsense for anyone, including geniuses, to refer to “the design of the universe”, and, at the same time, deny there is a designer of the universe. We, at this website, worship only the Creator, Almighty God, Yahweh, and not anyone or anything else, including human geniuses, who are fallible. Your “proofs” of God’s supposed “non-existence” have been refuted numerous times on this website!
RT: You’re the one who quoted atheist Hawking admiring “the grand design of the universe,” as evidence of atheism.
GW: So what? As far as we know from his lectures and books, Hawking never believed that God designed and created the universe. I am evidence enough for atheism. I have no belief in any gods. However, my proof that God does not exist is valid.
RT: Neither you, nor he, could see the fallacy of such wording.
GW” False. I see it. He should not have used that wording.
RT: “Design of the universe” means, by definition, and by implication, that there is a designer of the universe.
GW: We agree on that point. But Hawking did not adequately express his own beliefs on this point.
RT: The extreme complexities in the universe could not exist without a designer.
GW: Well, sure they could! Inherent order plus random movements leads to complex objects, just through natural processes, no god required. Different molecules have different bonding properties. This is why we see two molecules of hydrogen combining with one molecule of oxygen to form water.
RT: It is nonsense for anyone, including geniuses, to refer to “the design of the universe”, and, at the same time, deny there is a designer of the universe.
GW: It was just a mistake. Hawking had no belief in gods. He was an atheist. Get over it.
RT: We, at this website, worship only the Creator, Almighty God, Yahweh, and not anyone or anything else, including human geniuses, who are fallible.
GW: False. I am at this website and I don’t worship any creator or God. I also don’t worship human beings. Unfortunately, you worship Tuckergod who is either amoral or immoral. Why would anyone worship a god like that? It’s like worshiping Hitler.
RT: Your “proofs” of God’s supposed “non-existence” have been refuted numerous times on this website!
GW: So far, there have been no refutations or even the discovery of an error. But go ahead, present what you believe to be a refutation. I challenge you to a debate on this.
GW: I get God and Nothing confused all the time. They are like identical twins.
GW: The Fine Tuning Argument Against the Existence of God:
1. If God did exist, he would not fine tune the physical constants to produce a universe mostly hostile to life and ultimately exterminating all life.
2. But the actual physical constants are at values producing a universe mostly hostile to life and ultimately exterminating all life.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.
GW: The Lack of Revelation Argument Against the Existence of God:
1. If God did exist, he would present himself and his rules for living in a current, clear, unequivocal, objective, and universal manner.
2. A revelation like this has not occurred.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.
You say that scientific genius Hawking made a mistake by referring to the “grand design of the universe.” However, that is not possible, because in 2010, he, and another physicist, wrote and published a book entitled “The Grand Design,” proclaiming there is no designer. Thus, the entire crux of the book is oxymoronic! “In their own eyes flatter themselves too much to detect” their own foolishness (Psalm 36:2 NIV). This is similar to your book, “God Wants You To Be An Atheist,” in which you say the God you’re referring to is the Jewish-Christian God of the Bible. However, “God has made it plain” that he does exist, the Bible saying that “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,” for not believing in him (Romans 1:20 NIV). Further, “whoever does not believe stands condemned already” (John 3:18 NIV), until they believe. All atheistic proclamations against the existence of God are oxymoronic, because they defy both science and logic.
RT: You say that scientific genius Hawking made a mistake by referring to the “grand design of the universe.” However, that is not possible, because in 2010, he, and another physicist, wrote and published a book entitled “The Grand Design,” proclaiming there is no designer.
GW: He used words which implied that the universe had a designer, but he never believed that it did. Book titles are designed to sell books and usually determined by the publishers.
RT: Thus, the entire crux of the book is oxymoronic!
GW: The title may be oxymoronic, but the content of the book is not. Don’t judge a book by its cover. Read the content and then make judgements.
RT: “In their own eyes flatter themselves too much to detect” their own foolishness (Psalm 36:2 NIV).
GW: Hawking never flattered himself. He was a modest and humble man.
RT: This is similar to your book, “God Wants You To Be An Atheist,” in which you say the God you’re referring to is the Jewish-Christian God of the Bible.
GW: That’s about half correct. The god I refer to is explicitly defined in the book. Check out the definition.
RT: However, “God has made it plain” that he does exist, the Bible saying that “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,” for not believing in him (Romans 1:20 NIV).
GW: The ancient writers of the Bible had their speculations, hypotheses, and beliefs about God and they recorded these in the Bible, but we now know that God does not exist, as shown by many arguments. You don’t have to live in the ancient past. Come live with us in the 21st century.
RT: Further, “whoever does not believe stands condemned already” (John 3:18 NIV), until they believe.
GW: Condemned by whom? By God? No, because God does not exist. By the ancient writers? Perhaps, but who cares about their opinions? Not I.
RT: All atheistic proclamations against the existence of God are oxymoronic, because they defy both science and logic.
GW: “All”? You almost always falsify your own proclamations by using absolute words like “all.” My argument against the existence of God abides by science and logic. If you disagree, then clearly present an error. You haven’t. You can’t. And so, you have given up. You have surrendered to the power of Reason.
Hawking’s book, “The Grand Design,” despite the authors’ claims that there is no God, actually affirms and argues for the absolute beginning of the universe, and also for the apparently miraculous fine-tuning of the universe. The book provides many scientific facts which are very supportive of the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe, thus fulfilling what the scriptures say. “It is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate'” (1 Corinthians 1:19 NIV). “He catches the wise in their craftiness” (1 Corinthians 3:19 NIV). Likewise, in your book, “God Wants You To Be An Atheist,” you say on page 13, “My intention is to propose a definition of ‘God’, that . . . is agreeable to the vast majority of people who are followers of the Abrahamic religions, that is, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.” “In this definition I have offered, this one God is the Creator of our universe” (page 17). Therefore, the definition of “God” that you use in your book is, indeed, the Jewish-Christian God of the Bible. This is the “God” that you assert does not exist, and, at the same time, you claim that he ‘wants you to be an atheist.” Someone who does not exist cannot think, want, desire, or do anything at all!!!! Your book is simply another oxymoronic idiom reflecting iconic atheism. “The Lord God Almighty” who “created all things” (Revelation 4:8,11 NIV) has revealed himself, not only through the Bible, but also powerfully by his creation, especially the universe, and all that is in it (Romans 1:18-21), and also by the Moral Law that is programmed into human hearts and minds (Romans 2:14).
RT: Hawking’s book, “The Grand Design,” despite the authors’ claims that there is no God, actually affirms and argues for the absolute beginning of the universe, and also for the apparently miraculous fine-tuning of the universe.
GW: I am skeptical of these claims. Present quotes and citations to support these claims.
RT: The book provides many scientific facts which are very supportive of the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe, thus fulfilling what the scriptures say.
GW: I think you are making a category error. “Consistent with” is not the same thing as “supportive of.” The Big Bang is consistent with the idea that God caused this momentous event, but it is not supportive of that idea. It is also consistent with the idea that the universe is eternal.
RT: “It is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate’” (1 Corinthians 1:19 NIV).
GW: This hasn’t happened. Why? Because God does not exist, and this has been proven.
RT: “He catches the wise in their craftiness” (1 Corinthians 3:19 NIV).
GW: If God did exist, he would reward the wise.
RT: Likewise, in your book, “God Wants You To Be An Atheist,” you say on page 13, “My intention is to propose a definition of ‘God’, that . . . is agreeable to the vast majority of people who are followers of the Abrahamic religions, that is, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.” “In this definition I have offered, this one God is the Creator of our universe” (page 17).
GW: That sounds accurate.
RT: Therefore, the definition of “God” that you use in your book is, indeed, the Jewish-Christian God of the Bible.
GW: That’s about half correct. The definition I present is rooted in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but has also been refined by subsequent thought of theologians and philosophers through history. The definition stabilized with Aquinas in the 1200s.
RT: This is the “God” that you assert does not exist, and, at the same time, you claim that he ‘wants you to be an atheist.”
GW: You are missing one critical theme of the book: If God exists, then he wants you to be an atheist. However, he doesn’t exist.
RT: Someone who does not exist cannot think, want, desire, or do anything at all!!!!
GW: That is correct. But if God did exist, then he could think, want, and desire. You are failing to recognize the contingency. That is the purpose of the term “if.”
RT: Your book is simply another oxymoronic idiom reflecting iconic atheism.
GW: I totally disagree. The ideas of my book are sound and true. Also, unlike me, most atheists do not claim “God does not exist.” I do.
RT: “The Lord God Almighty” who “created all things” (Revelation 4:8,11 NIV) has revealed himself, not only through the Bible, but also powerfully by his creation, especially the universe, and all that is in it (Romans 1:18-21), and also by the Moral Law that is programmed into human hearts and minds (Romans 2:14).
GW: I strongly disagree. You are just mistakenly inferring the existence of God from your observations of the universe and life. God has made no revelations. What would a revelation from God look like? I’ve told you many times. A Godly revelation would be current, universal, clear, unambiguous, and objective. Nothing like this has ever happened. If such a revelation occurred, the number of atheists in the world would be less than the number of flat earthers. Even you and I would then probably believe that God exists.
“M-Theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing” (The Grand Design). Thus it is admitted that “a great many universes WERE CREATED OUT OF NOTHING”, which means that THE UNIVERSE, or the ‘multiple universes,’ is/are not eternal, but had A BEGINNING OUT OF NOTHING. Even worse for atheism, the Multiple Universe Theory doesn’t eliminate–it multiplies the need for a Designer!!! You say “unlike me, most atheists do not “claim that God does not exist.” The very definition of an atheist is “one who believes that God or gods does/do not exist,” so you’re not even using the correct definition of an atheist. You claim that God hasn’t revealed himself, but he has in very obvious ways since before humans existed. “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:20 NIV). Ever since eons prior to humans’ existence, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge” (Psalm 19:1,2 NIV). Reasonable people understand that “every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything” (Hebrews 3:4 NIV).
RT: “M-Theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing” (The Grand Design).
GW: You and I share the belief that something cannot come from nothing. I don’t know why you keep bringing up such ideas.
RT: Thus it is admitted that “a great many universes WERE CREATED OUT OF NOTHING”, which means that THE UNIVERSE, or the ‘multiple universes,’ is/are not eternal, but had A BEGINNING OUT OF NOTHING.
GW: I agree with you that the authors seem to believe that many universes were created out of nothing, and you and I disagree with this belief. However, what about our own universe, the one we live in? Do these authors believe that this particular one was created out of nothing? Just to be clear, I believe that the universe in which we live is probably eternal and that something cannot come from nothing. If God did exist (and he does not), then he would have created our universe not out of nothing but out of a piece of himself. It would have been a transformation rather than a creation from nothing. Agree?
RT: Even worse for atheism, the Multiple Universe Theory doesn’t eliminate–it multiplies the need for a Designer!!!
GW: You are confusing many different questions: “How many universes are there?” “Are universes eternal or not?” “If universes are not eternal, then how do they come into existence?” “Do any gods exist?” “Does God exist?” “Are there any good evidences, reasons, or arguments to believe that any particular god exists?” Each question must be answered independently.
GW: Just to be clear, I am not an advocate of the multiverse. I see no good reasons so far to believe that it exists. I believe that our universe is the only one, that it is eternal, and that God does not exist. By Occam’s Razor, this is the simplest explanation which accounts for all the facts. (I actually go one step further – I know that God does not exist.)
RT: You say “unlike me, most atheists do not “claim that God does not exist.”
GW: Yes, that is a fact.
RT: The very definition of an atheist is “one who believes that God or gods does/do not exist,” so you’re not even using the correct definition of an atheist.
GW: False. You are not even using the correct definition of “atheist.” An atheist is a person who does not have any beliefs in the existence of any gods! It is a large category with at least three sub-categories. There is a subset of these atheists, like me, who believe that God does not exist. Most atheists do not take the stronger position which I take.
RT: You claim that God hasn’t revealed himself, but he has in very obvious ways since before humans existed.
GW: You are simply overlooking or ignoring my argument with respect to this issue:
1. If God did exist, he would reveal himself in a current, universal, obvious, unequivocal, and objective manner.
2. No such revelation has occurred.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.
If he did exist, God would hold a press conference in which he would appear and speak to everyone in the world! Why would he do this? Because he would be all-powerful, perfectly rational, and perfectly moral. How could anyone then deny the existence of God? However, the lesser god you believe in is shy, coy, deceptive, and amoral or immoral.
RT: “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:20 NIV).
GW: But there are several good explanations for what we see in the universe. So, the inference of divine creation is not clear, and people have good “excuse” to not believe that God exists. If God did exist, he would reveal himself in the way I have described and then people would be without excuse. You and the author just have too low standards of evidence for proper belief.
GW: It would be immoral for any god to send people to hell who did not believe in him without his making the type of revelation I have described. No moral god would ever do that. Your lesser god might do that because your god is either amoral or immoral. Which is it?
RT: Ever since eons prior to humans’ existence, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge” (Psalm 19:1,2 NIV).
GW: The universe doesn’t “declare” anything. The universe doesn’t talk. The universe is not a person. The author is just saying that he believes the existence of God can be inferred by observing ordered and complex objects in the universe. Of course, that is one hypothesis among many, and it is not the most probable. But now we know that God does not exist. See my argument for one proof.
RT: Reasonable people understand that “every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything” (Hebrews 3:4 NIV).
GW: This is the same old failed argument from analogy which we previously discussed:
1. Intelligent agents, i.e. human persons, construct buildings and machines which are orderly and complex.
2. There are orderly and complex objects in the universe which surely must have been constructed by one or more intelligent agents similar to human persons.
3. The intelligent agent constructing these objects must have been God.
Premise #1 is true. Premise #2 is false or unproven. And the conclusion at #3 is also false or unproven. There is no good evidence in support of #2. But even if #2 were true, the responsible intelligent agent could be an advanced alien or a god besides God or the favorite lesser god which you believe in. (Your god is lesser since it is not perfectly moral.)
You quoted atheist Hawking’s statement that we should be ‘in awe of the grand design of the universe’ to support atheism. It was pointed out to you that if there is a “design”, there has to be a designer. It was also pointed out to you that his book “the Grand Design” stated that “a great many universes were created out of nothing”, proving to you that world-renowned physicists that you admire, such as Hawking, know and proclaim that our universe had a beginning. It was also pointed out to you that you’re in denial of the meaning of the word “atheist,” which by definition, means one is not a theist, that is does not believe in a God or gods. Geniuses, such as Hawking, who have a precommittal to atheism, but are faced with an ever-increasing barrage of overwhelming facts in support of an outside all-powerful and all-wise Creator of the universe, have appealed to ever-increasing absurdities, such as the Multiverse Theory, to counteract the evidence for God. This is just one of many facts demonstrating how secure these evidences for God. When atheists feel forced to come up with such increasingly absurd alternative explanations, it indicates something about the strength of the conclusion for God. This is similar to Flat-earthers who have come up their reasons to believe in a flat earth which are much more absurd today than they were 30-40 years ago, and far more than they were 100-120 years ago.
RT: You quoted atheist Hawking’s statement that we should be ‘in awe of the grand design of the universe’ to support atheism.
GW: That’s not quite accurate. I quoted Hawking because his views about the universe are not compatible with yours. Although he used the word “design,” he never believed that the universe was designed by God or any god for that matter. I am in awe of the inherent orderliness of the universe. Aren’t you?
RT: It was pointed out to you that if there is a “design”, there has to be a designer.
GW: I agree, but there are no good reasons to think there is a design or designer for the universe.
RT: It was also pointed out to you that his book “the Grand Design” stated that “a great many universes were created out of nothing”, proving to you that world-renowned physicists that you admire, such as Hawking, know and proclaim that our universe had a beginning.
GW: Well first, you and I both believe that something cannot come from nothing, so I don’t know why you keep bringing up this idea. Secondly, if you will do more reading of modern physics, you will see that the physicists’ idea of nothing is not the same as the philosophers’ idea of nothing. When most physicists refer to “nothing” they are actually referring to a very low default field of energy or virtual particles. When most philosophers refer to “nothing” they are referring to either Absolute Nothing or Bounded Nothing.
RT: It was also pointed out to you that you’re in denial of the meaning of the word “atheist,” which by definition, means one is not a theist, that is does not believe in a God or gods.
GW: The definition you gave here for “atheist” is one correct meaning of the word, and I agree with it. An atheist is either a person who is not a theist or a person who does not have any beliefs in any gods. Those two definitions are nearly identical.
RT: Geniuses, such as Hawking, who have a precommittal to atheism, but are faced with an ever-increasing barrage of overwhelming facts in support of an outside all-powerful and all-wise Creator of the universe, have appealed to ever-increasing absurdities, such as the Multiverse Theory, to counteract the evidence for God.
GW: I do not know when Hawking became an atheist, but since he was a genius it was probably in his teenage years. You are referring to ideas which are not facts. There is no “ever-increasing barrage of overwhelming facts in support of an outside all-powerful and all-wise Creator.” You claim to know things which you do not know and which nobody knows. Just because you wish a proposition were true, i.e. that God exists, does not mean that it is true. In fact, we now know that God does not exist. Just look at my arguments for the proof that God does not exist, arguments which you continue to evade. In addition, neither you nor I believe that the Multiverse Theory is true, so I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.
GW: Any genius like Hawking, Newton, Einstein, and Darwin can be correct in some of their claims and incorrect in others. After all, they are fallible human beings, just like you and me. We need to carefully evaluate each of their claims with the aid of Reason. Your claim that God exists is just false, as proven by many arguments.
RT: This is just one of many facts demonstrating how secure these evidences for God.
GW: There are no secure evidences for the existence of God! I have refuted every claim of this evidence that you have presented so far. In fact almost all the evidence points in the opposite direction, i.e. against the existence of God. For example, you claim that God designed and created the universe. Well, that just cannot be the case. Why? Because the universe does not have the features of a universe which an all-powerful and perfectly moral being would create. For example, our universe has bone cancer in children. If he did exist, God would never design and create a universe with that!
RT: When atheists feel forced to come up with such increasingly absurd alternative explanations, it indicates something about the strength of the conclusion for God.
GW: The main alternative to your claim that the universe had a beginning is the claim that the universe is eternal. That’s not absurd at all. That’s perfectly rational, and in fact it is more probably true than your claim for three reasons which I have already presented to you.
RT: This is similar to Flat-earthers who have come up their reasons to believe in a flat earth which are much more absurd today than they were 30-40 years ago, and far more than they were 100-120 years ago.
GW: If God did exist, the percentage of atheists in the world would be less than the current percentage of Flat-Earthers in the world. Why? Because God would present himself in a current, clear, unambiguous, universal, and objective revelation. If he did, then I would believe in him, and most atheists would change their minds.
GW: Think about this scenario: Suppose a woman has sought God throughout her life, has seen no convincing evidence for his existence, and dies at the age of 86. According to most Christians, God will send her to hell. But that is preposterous! If God did exist, he would send her for a longer stay in heaven. God would not punish people for failure to believe in him, given that he did not present clear unambiguous evidence of his existence. That would be immoral, and if God did exist, he would be perfectly moral. When you think carefully about these things, it becomes pretty obvious that God does not exist.
GW: I often get God and Nothing mixed up. They are like identical twins.
Let’s set one thing straight right now. This site, Bible authenticity, supports and defends true Biblical teachings, and hellfire is not one of those. The concept is rooted in ancient paganism, and drawn from Greek philosophy overlaid on top of true Biblical teachings, in similar fashion to the Trinity doctrine. God warned Adam and Eve that if they ate “from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” they would “certainly die” (Genesis 2:17 NIV). After they ate from it, God pronounced his sentence upon them, stating that they would “return to the ground” (Genesis 3:19 NIV). There was no mention of any “hellfire”. If there was such a thing that existed, and humans risked that type of punishment, surely God would mentioned it in his warning and in his punishment, but he didn’t, because it doesn’t exist. Pagans would “burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal”, but Almighty God Yahweh said that such a concept was “something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind” (Jeremiah 19:5 NIV). Christians are told that “the wages of sin is death”, not hellfire (Romans 6:23 NIV), and that “sin entered the world through one man, and death [not hellfire] through sin” (Romans 5:12 NIV). “The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing” (Ecclesiastes 9:5 NIV). Thus, the Bible presents death as being non-existence, which is the same concept of death that you have.
RT: Let’s set one thing straight right now. This site, Bible authenticity, supports and defends true Biblical teachings, and hellfire is not one of those.
GW: “True Biblical teachings” are very rare. For example, the Bible teaches that God exists, and that idea has been proven to be false. Most Christians believe that hellfire does exist. If you don’t, that would be a good thing.
RT: The concept is rooted in ancient paganism, and drawn from Greek philosophy overlaid on top of true Biblical teachings, in similar fashion to the Trinity doctrine.
GW: There are verses in the Bible which support the existence of hell.
RT: God warned Adam and Eve that if they ate “from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” they would “certainly die” (Genesis 2:17 NIV). After they ate from it, God pronounced his sentence upon them, stating that they would “return to the ground” (Genesis 3:19 NIV).
GW: The story of Adam and Eve is just fiction. God would never pronounce such a cruel sentence on Adam and Eve, if he did exist.
RT: There was no mention of any “hellfire”.
GW: Not in that verse, but there is any several other verses. I am sure you must be aware of them.
RT: If there was such a thing that existed, and humans risked that type of punishment, surely God would mentioned it in his warning and in his punishment, but he didn’t, because it doesn’t exist.
GW: God does not exist to mention anything! But some of the writers of the Bible mentioned it. Of course, you know this.
GW: According to the Pew Research Center, 58% of people believe in hell, 34% do not believe in hell, and 8% are uncertain or undecided.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/belief-in-hell/
RT: Pagans would “burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal”, but Almighty God Yahweh said that such a concept was “something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind” (Jeremiah 19:5 NIV).
GW: In the mostly fictional Bible, however, “God” does command or authorize other heinous acts. Because we know that God would never do this, we know that the Bible cannot be the word of God.
RT: Christians are told that “the wages of sin is death”, not hellfire (Romans 6:23 NIV), and that “sin entered the world through one man, and death [not hellfire] through sin” (Romans 5:12 NIV).
GW: According to most Christians, death is for everyone, but hell and heaven are for different people after death. Of course you know this.
RT: “The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing” (Ecclesiastes 9:5 NIV).
GW: Do you believe that this verse is true? Do you agree that consciousness, mental life, memories, and personal identity vanish forever upon death for everyone?
RT: Thus, the Bible presents death as being non-existence, which is the same concept of death that you have.
GW: Well Ross, tell us what your belief about an afterlife is. I have recently listened to several religious philosophers who have concluded that if there is no heaven or hell, then God does not exist. They contend that an afterlife is the only way to balance the scales for the existence of horrible harms in this life.
GW: Nevertheless, you continue to evade my argument. Why is that?
This website, Bible Authenticity, advocates and promotes true Biblical teachings, which are sometimes in conflict with the most popular viewpoints held by: (1) people who consider themselves Christians; (2) Christian clergy/preachers/leaders; and (3) by those who are viewed as Biblical “scholars”. While some Bible translations mistranslate the Hebrew “Sheol”; the Greek words “hades”, and “Gehenna”, as “hellfire”, or “hell fire” or the like, the Bible not only never mentions “hellfire” or the like, it actually contradicts such a paganized concept, as shown in the scriptures quoted above. These and other scriptures convey the truth that death is non-existence for all people, except for those who are resurrected by God, who will be “repaid at the resurrection of the righteous” (Luke 14:14 NIV). “Your dead will live, LORD [Yahweh] (Isaiah 26:19 NIV). On the other hand, “among the dead no one proclaims your name. Who praises you from the dead?” (Psalm 6:5 NIV). Popular opinion has never been an accurate barometer of truth. Popular beliefs and opinions are ever-changing, but God’s Word, the Bible, which this website advocates, never changes. If you want to debate popular opinions, take it somewhere else. This is not the site for it.
RT: This website, Bible Authenticity, advocates and promotes true Biblical teachings, which are sometimes in conflict with the most popular viewpoints held by: (1) people who consider themselves Christians; (2) Christian clergy/preachers/leaders; and (3) by those who are viewed as Biblical “scholars”.
GW: You only advocate for the true ones? So all Biblical teachings are not true? That’s what I thought. Most Christians would probably not consider you a Christian. What must a person believe in order to be classified as a Christian? I have thought a lot about this, but what is your list?
RT: While some Bible translations mistranslate the Hebrew “Sheol”; the Greek words “hades”, and “Gehenna”, as “hellfire”, or “hell fire” or the like, the Bible not only never mentions “hellfire” or the like, it actually contradicts such a paganized concept, as shown in the scriptures quoted above.
GW: Mark 3:29: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.
Mark 9: 47-48: And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mat. 10:28: And fear not them which kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Ezek 31:15-16: Thus saith the Lord God;…I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit…
II Peter 2:4: For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgement.
Ps. 9:17: The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.
Rev. 20:15: And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Ps. 55:23: But thou, O God, shalt bring them down into the pit of destruction…
RT: These and other scriptures convey the truth that death is non-existence for all people, except for those who are resurrected by God, who will be “repaid at the resurrection of the righteous” (Luke 14:14 NIV). “Your dead will live, LORD [Yahweh] (Isaiah 26:19 NIV). On the other hand, “among the dead no one proclaims your name. Who praises you from the dead?” (Psalm 6:5 NIV).
GW: Again, you just cherry pick the verses to support your opinion and ignore those which contradict it.
RT: Popular opinion has never been an accurate barometer of truth. Popular beliefs and opinions are ever-changing, but God’s Word, the Bible, which this website advocates, never changes.
GW: Ernest people have very different interpretations of the Bible, and many of your interpretations are in the minority even among Christians. We know the Bible is not the word of God. That is impossible.
GW: You still evade my argument.
A Christian meets this Biblical description: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life” (John 3:36 NIV). What does it mean to ‘believe in the Son’? Jesus said: “Whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing” (John 14:12 NIV). You’ve used the old, inaccurately translated KJV to ‘prove’ “hellfire”. Accurate translations render the verses as follows: ” . . . they are guilty of eternal sin” (Mark 3:29 NIV). ” . . . than with two eyes into Gehenna, where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:47,48 NAB). “Be afraid of the one who can destroy both should and body in Gehenna” (Matthew 10:28 NAB). ” . . . on the day it went down to Sheol . . . When I cast it down to Sheol” (Ezekiel 31:15,16 NAB). ” . . . condemned them to the chains of Tartarus” (2 Peter 2:4 NAB). “To Sheol the wicked will depart” (Psalm 9:18 NAB; [Psalm 9:17 in most]). “The pit of destruction” (Psalm 55:23) clearly indicates the wicked will be ‘destroyed’, not given eternal life in “hellfire.” “The lake of fire” is plainly explained to be “the second death” [eternal death] (Revelation 20:14,15), not eternal life in “hellfire.” And, yes, there are wide variety of opinions about the Bible and what it says. This website quotes and comments on the scriptures, giving them the first place as being factual, no matter what popular opinion says.
RT: A Christian meets this Biblical description: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life” (John 3:36 NIV).
GW: That is necessary, but not sufficient.
RT: What does it mean to ‘believe in the Son’? Jesus said: “Whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing” (John 14:12 NIV).
GW: No, that’s not what it means. It means to believe 1) Jesus was a messenger of God. 2) Jesus was himself divine at least to some extent. 3) Jesus died from crucifixion, was buried, and rose on the third day. 4) Jesus’ died for the sins of all humanity.
RT: You’ve used the old, inaccurately translated KJV to ‘prove’ “hellfire”.
GW: There you go again – cherry picking your versions. Other versions besides the KJV present hell accurately.
RT: Accurate translations render the verses as follows: ” . . . they are guilty of eternal sin” (Mark 3:29 NIV). ” . . . than with two eyes into Gehenna, where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:47,48 NAB). “Be afraid of the one who can destroy both should and body in Gehenna” (Matthew 10:28 NAB). ” . . . on the day it went down to Sheol . . . When I cast it down to Sheol” (Ezekiel 31:15,16 NAB). ” . . . condemned them to the chains of Tartarus” (2 Peter 2:4 NAB). “To Sheol the wicked will depart” (Psalm 9:18 NAB; [Psalm 9:17 in most]). “The pit of destruction” (Psalm 55:23) clearly indicates the wicked will be ‘destroyed’, not given eternal life in “hellfire.” “The lake of fire” is plainly explained to be “the second death” [eternal death] (Revelation 20:14,15), not eternal life in “hellfire.”
GW: If God did exist, there wouldn’t be different versions or interpretations of the Bible. He would not stand for it.
RT: And, yes, there are wide variety of opinions about the Bible and what it says. This website quotes and comments on the scriptures, giving them the first place as being factual, no matter what popular opinion says.
GW: In your opinion. However, if God did exist, we would know the truth and it would set us free from opinions, versions, and interpretations.
GW: A Christian is a person who sincerely believes these eleven propositions and nothing else which contradicts them.
1. God exists.
2. There is an afterlife for all human beings.
3. The quality of the afterlife for any human being, i.e. good or bad, is contingent on him/her sincerely holding specific beliefs.
4. God desires human beings to behave and believe in some ways and not in other ways.
5. To behave and believe contrary to God’s desires or commands is sin.
6. The penalty for any unforgiven sins is a bad afterlife.
7. Jesus was the divine messenger of God, the son of God, or God himself in unique form.
8. Jesus died and came back to life in physical form.
9. Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of all human beings through his suffering on the cross and consequent death; this is atonement.
10. Human beings may be forgiven for their sins only by sincere confession and acceptance of the atonement of Jesus.
11. The Bible is the true word of God.
Let’s set another thing straight. “Our universe has” [NOT] bone cancer in children”, as you allege. There is bone cancer on planet earth, but none has been discovered elsewhere in the universe. Why is there any sickness and disease, accidents, tragedies, and death, etc. on earth? Well, the fact is that “God created mankind upright, but they have gone in search of many schemes” (Ecclesiastes 7:29 NIV), “He is the Rock, his his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he” (Deuteronomy 32:4 NIV), “As for God, his way is perfect” (2 Samuel 22:31 NIV). Humans opted to blatantly rebel against God’s clear and simple warning to avoid a choice that would lead to extreme problems (Genesis 2:17; 3:6; 3:16-19; Romans 5:12; 6:23). Humans can still “choose life, so that you and your children may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19 NIV). God’s son, Jesus Christ, “became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him” (Hebrews 5:9 NIV), “the one who is victorious will not be hurt at all by the second death”, and “God . . . will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Revelation 2:11; 21:4 NIV).
RT: Let’s set another thing straight. “Our universe has” [NOT] bone cancer in children”, as you allege.
GW: Your claim is false. As I already said “our universe has bone cancer in children.”
RT: There is bone cancer on planet earth, but none has been discovered elsewhere in the universe.
GW: Yes! Planet Earth is part of our universe. Planet Earth has bone cancer in children. Therefore, our universe has bone cancer in children. Follow the logic.
RT: Why is there any sickness and disease, accidents, tragedies, and death, etc. on earth? Well, the fact is that “God created mankind upright, but they have gone in search of many schemes” (Ecclesiastes 7:29 NIV),
GW: Bone cancer in children is not the result of any “scheme” of human persons!
RT: “He is the Rock, his his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he” (Deuteronomy 32:4 NIV),
GW: If God did exist, all his works would be perfect. But we know that God does not exist because the Earth is not perfect. Bone cancer in children is certainly not just.
RT: “As for God, his way is perfect” (2 Samuel 22:31 NIV).
GW: If God did exist, his ways would be perfectly rational and moral, as I have indicated in the standard definition of God. And so, by observing the conditions on Earth we may correctly conclude that God does not exist.
RT: Humans opted to blatantly rebel against God’s clear and simple warning to avoid a choice that would lead to extreme problems (Genesis 2:17; 3:6; 3:16-19; Romans 5:12; 6:23).
GW: First, the story of Adam and Eve is just fiction. Second, we know it is fiction because if two human beings had disobeyed God’s simple warming not to eat some fruit, God would not have punished them in the way described in the story. His punishment would have been less harsh and he wouldn’t have punished the descendants of Adam and Eve for their specific sin. Those alleged acts attributed to God would be immoral, and if God did exist, he would be perfectly moral. Is your lesser god, the one you worship, amoral or immoral? Which is it?
RT: Humans can still “choose life, so that you and your children may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19 NIV).
GW: What life? You said there is no life after the one we are in. Make up your mind.
RT: God’s son, Jesus Christ, “became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him” (Hebrews 5:9 NIV),
GW: Salvation from what? Jesus was just a traveling preacher.
RT: “the one who is victorious will not be hurt at all by the second death”, and “God . . . will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Revelation 2:11; 21:4 NIV).
GW: You just can’t make up your mind about an afterlife.
GW: You continue to evade my argument. What about Covid? And what about bone cancer in children?
As explained to you above, God has always allowed all humans the exercise of their free will. If God eternally terminated all who sin, then he would exterminate you and I eternally. His mercy has allowed us sinners to exist in this now sinful world, and have the opportunity for perfect eternal existence under perfect conditions. It’s our choice (Deuteronomy 30:19,20).
RT: As explained to you above, God has always allowed all humans the exercise of their free will.
GW: I strongly disagree. If God did exist, he would not “always allow all humans the exercise of their free will.” For example, he would not give men the free will to rape women. Such enabling would be immoral, and if he did exist, God would be perfectly moral. The religious doctrine of free will is fatally flawed.
GW: But as I explained to you above, if God did command Adam and Eve to refrain from eating a fruit and they disobeyed, he would never punish them in the manner described in Genesis. Maybe your lesser god would do that, but God wouldn’t. Is the god you worship amoral or immoral? Which is it? You keep ignoring that question even though I have asked you repeatedly. Or do you even understand the question?
RT: If God eternally terminated all who sin, then he would exterminate you and I eternally.
GW: Well, of course! No human being is infallible, not even Jesus.
RT: His mercy has allowed us sinners to exist in this now sinful world, and have the opportunity for perfect eternal existence under perfect conditions. It’s our choice (Deuteronomy 30:19,20).
GW: If God did exist, he would not allow the free will to commit the most serious and harmful of sins, like murder, rape, robbery, and assault. Also, if he were going to reward and punish people, it would not be based on their faith in Jesus Christ. It would be based on their behavior in the world, especially how they treat other people. Furthermore, he would send everyone to a place like hell first to serve a sentence there based on the number and severity of their sins and then he would send them to heaven for a duration based on the number and significance of their good deeds. The authors of the Bible, almost all Christians, and you do not understand the concept of God.
GW: William Lane Craig, the world’s foremost Christian apologist, has said “God is the greatest being possible, that is to say, it is impossible for there to be any being greater than God.”
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/why-cant-god-be-just-the-greatest-being/
This doesn’t mean that God exists, but it points us in the right direction as to what God would be like if he did exist and how to know whether or not he exists. The “greatest being possible” would be all-powerful, perfectly moral, and creator of the universe, if he did exist. And so, we know that this being does not exist by simply looking at the world in which we live. If this being did exist, there would be no Covid pandemic and no bone cancer in children! This is obvious. If you disagree, then coherently present your case.
Believing in Jesus means believing and doing everything that Jesus taught (John 14:12; Matthew 7:21-23). The Bible says that we should “believe that Jesus is the Messiah [not God Almighty], the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31 NIV). Jesus did not teach that everyone gets some form of eternal life. In fact, he said that we should “be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna” (Matthew 10:28 NAB). Something that is destroyed no longer exists. Jesus said, “My sheep listen to my voice . . . I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish” (John 10:27,28 NIV). You’re being hypocritical by accusing us of ‘cherry-picking translations’, when you have used both the NIV and the KJV. The ‘cherry-picknig translations’ accusation is often used by those whose Biblical argument is weak. The use of multiple translations is authorized by Jesus, who directed his followers to take his message to “all nations” (Matthew 28:19 NIV). Jesus’ physical body was not resurrected, but was sacrificed. “We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10 NIV). Jesus was “put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit” (1 Peter 3:18 NIV), becoming “a life-giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45 NIV).
RT: Believing in Jesus means believing and doing everything that Jesus taught (John 14:12; Matthew 7:21-23).
GW: Believing in Jesus is not the same as being a Christian. These are two different ideas and the criteria for one are not identical with the criteria for the other. Also, we don’t know “everything that Jesus taught” and some of what we assume to know about what he taught is surely false. The Gospels are an imperfect rendition of the life of Jesus, although I do believe he did exist, as does Bart Ehrman. However, in one way to place so much emphasis or trust in Jesus is a kind of blasphemy. I believe that if God did exist (he doesn’t, of course), then he would not use intermediaries, e.g. Jesus, Mohammad, Moses, Paul, etc., in order to teach us how to life. He would just do it himself. He would present himself and his rules for living in the grand revelation I have described to you many times. The Bible is a very primitive and naive description of what God would be like, if he existed. The authors were simply mistaken in many respects.
RT: The Bible says that we should “believe that Jesus is the Messiah [not God Almighty], the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31 NIV).
GW: When you say “the Bible says” what you mean is that some human man, an author, said this. We now know that many of the Bible authors were mistaken in what they said, and even today many interpreters of the Bible, like you, do not even agree on the meaning of what a Bible author said. The Bible is on very shaky ground. I don’t believe Jesus performed miracles or that he was divine or that he was even a messenger from God. The evidence for any of these speculations is just too weak. Why would God use any intermediaries to say what he is thinking when he would be all-powerful? He would just do his own preaching!
RT: Jesus did not teach that everyone gets some form of eternal life. In fact, he said that we should “be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna” (Matthew 10:28 NAB). Something that is destroyed no longer exists.
GW: The key word here is “can.” If God did exist, surely he could destroy a person because he would be all powerful, but this does not mean that he ever would. God could also do evil because he would be all powerful, but he would not do this. (And so we know that God would never allow the Covid pandemic.) The set of things God could do is infinite, but the set of things he would do is finite. He would not act contrary to his basic personality. I believe that if God did exist, then he would destroy nobody. But since he does not exist, the default is that everyone becomes nonexistent at death.
RT: Jesus said, “My sheep listen to my voice . . . I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish” (John 10:27,28 NIV).
GW: I do not believe Jesus had supernatural powers, and so I don’t believe he could give anybody eternal life. He suffered from delusions of grandiosity. And if God did exist, he would not assign duties to emissaries which he could perform himself. On the other hand, if God did exist, he would give eternal life to everybody. However, we would all spend some time in hell and then some time in heaven. You must think rationally about these difficult subjects.
RT: You’re being hypocritical by accusing us of ‘cherry-picking translations’, when you have used both the NIV and the KJV.
GW: For me it is an accident, but for you it is a strategy. You carry around different translations so that if one translation does not support your point, you just search for one that does. That is known as “confirmation bias.” I advised you long ago to first decide which translation you believe is the best and give away all your other translations. Be consistent. Use one reference source.
RT: The ‘cherry-picknig translations’ accusation is often used by those whose Biblical argument is weak.
GW: Yes, maybe that is why you cherry pick. By their nature, all Biblical arguments are weak. When I am discussing philosophy, I tend to avoid the Bible altogether, as you should also. It is a book not to be trusted. Why should you place more faith in the opinions of men who lived 2000 years ago than in your own opinions determined today?
RT: The use of multiple translations is authorized by Jesus, who directed his followers to take his message to “all nations” (Matthew 28:19 NIV).
GW: Your interpretation here is nonsensical. There were no “multiple translations of the Bible” during Jesus’ life. In fact, there was no Bible at all! Jesus probably meant that his disciples should teach his message in the same language in which he taught it to them. Let the recipients learn the original language. (I have a Muslim friend who moved to Saudi Arabia in order to learn Arabic and read the Quran in its original language. Now that is dedication!)
RT: Jesus’ physical body was not resurrected, but was sacrificed.
GW: These are not mutually exclusive. Most Christians believe that Jesus’ physical body was resurrected and sacrificed. “Sacrifice” here refers to the atonement.
RT: “We have been made holy through th sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10 NIV).
GW: Yes, this is just the doctrine of the atonement.
RT: Jesus was “put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit” (1 Peter 3:18 NIV), becoming “a life-giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45 NIV).
GW: You are leaving out the most important part of the story, according to most Christians. Jesus was alive, died, and then came back to life. The latter event is known as “the resurrection of Jesus.” Later on in another place his soul would have left his body just as it is alleged that our souls leave our bodies at death. The separation of the body and soul of Jesus probably came at the Ascension, if we take the story seriously. Of course in reality, just like the rest of us, Jesus did not have a soul. Nobody does.
GW: As you can see, even you and I who have read and studied the Bible disagree in our interpretations of it. And you disagree with Christians too. Many of your interpretations are in the minority. Everyone thinks they have the correct interpretation. But if God did exist, there would be no disagreements about these things. God himself would present himself to us and tell us “the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” so help himself. There would be only one religion and it would come directly from the head honcho.
Almighty God can operate however he wishes. “Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?” (Job 11:7 NIV). The implied answer is “no”. Therefore, he can, and does, use intermediaries without any diminishment of his powers. “The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power” (Job 37:23 NIV).
“You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe and shudder” (James 2:19 NIV). This is not the kind of ‘belief’ that Jesus promoted. He said, “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46 NIV). ‘Doing what Jesus said’ is what makes one a Christian. Jesus illustrated the kind of ‘belief’ that he promoted, and the kind of ‘belief’ he did not promote, in Matthew 7:24-27: “Everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. the rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell down with a great crash” (NIV).
You have correctly identified “death” as being “non-existence”. Jesus said, “I was dead” (Revelation 1:18), meaning he was non-existent, until he was “resurrected” “from the dead” (Acts 2:32 HCSB; Romans 1:4 NIV)). The Greek word “zoopoieo”, translated as “made alive” at 1 Peter 3:18 means being brought to life, as it is also at John 5:2; Romans 4:17; 8:11; 1 Corinthians 15:22,36,45. The fact most believe that Jesus’ executed corpse was resurrected doesn’t change the Biblical truth that “the body of Jesus Christ” was ‘sacrificed’, so completely consumed by God that nothing of it remained, in that sense being similar to “burnt offerings” under the Mosaic Law Covenant (Hebrews 10:5,6,10 NIV).
The design in the universe is so obvious that even world-renowned physicists/atheists, such as Hawking, inadvertently refer to being awed by “the grand design,” which bears out the truth of Hebrews 3:4: “Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything” (NIV). Regarding human understanding of why Almighty God operates the way he does, including his temporary tolerance of evil, “Do you know the laws of the heavens, Can you set up God’s dominion over the earth?” (Job 38:33 NIV). We don’t know all the facts, nor all things about his tolerance of evil. “What is the way to the dwelling of light, and darkness–where is its place?” (Job 38:19 NAB). We don’t even fully understand light and darkness.
RT: The design in the universe is so obvious that even world-renowned physicists/atheists, such as Hawking, inadvertently refer to being awed by “the grand design,”
GW: That is a distortion of Hawking’s views. If you actually read what he wrote and spoke you will see that he, like Einstein and others, was awed by the orderliness in the universe, which is described by natural laws. He never thought that this orderliness was created, produced, or installed by any god, including God. In fact he was an atheist.
RT: which bears out the truth of Hebrews 3:4: “Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything” (NIV).
GW: This is just another version of the construction analogy argument:
1. Intelligent agents, i.e. human persons, construct buildings and machines which are orderly and complex.
2. There are orderly and complex objects in the universe which surely must have been constructed by one or more intelligent agents similar to human persons.
3. The intelligent agent constructing these objects must have been God.
Premise #1 is true. Premise #2 is false or unproven. And the conclusion at #3 is also false or unproven. There is no good evidence in support of #2. But even if #2 were true, the responsible intelligent agent could be an advanced alien or a god besides.
RT: Regarding human understanding of why Almighty God operates the way he does, including his temporary tolerance of evil, “Do you know the laws of the heavens, Can you set up God’s dominion over the earth?” (Job 38:33 NIV).
GW: You forgot to include the part of the story where God made a bet with Satan. Ha. What a joke the book of Job is! If he did exist, God would never behave in the way it is described in Job. You know this.
GW: If God did exist and he had any good reasons for allowing the Covid pandemic and bone cancer in children, he would tell us. But how could he have any good reasons since he would be all powerful and perfectly moral?
RT: We don’t know all the facts, nor all things about his tolerance of evil.
GW: We know that if God did exist, he wouldn’t tolerate moderate to severe harm in our world. If you think he would, then tell us why. You’ve got nothing.
RT: “What is the way to the dwelling of light, and darkness–where is its place?” (Job 38:19 NAB). We don’t even fully understand light and darkness.
GW: Yes, we do. Light is due to the presence of photons, and dark is due to the absence of photons.
GW: But if God did exist, he would present himself, his rules for living, and any good reasons he might have for allowing moderate to severe harm (how could he have any?) in a current, clear, unambiguous, universal, and objective revelation. Then the atheists would be without excuse. But alas, this has not happened. Therefore, God does not exist!
GW: Your worldview is so shallow, partly because you worship a lesser god. Is it amoral or immoral? Of course you will continue to evade that question.
“Do you know the laws of the heavens? (Job 38:33 NIV). “All parts of the universe are subject to the same simple laws of nature that we find here on earth” (American Museum of Natural History). You’re simply in denial about some of Hawking’s views. The universe is not simply “described by natural laws”, as you like to think. Hawking said, “I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws”, and “The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron . . . the remarkable fact is that these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”, and “In real time, the universe has a beginning”. The existence of laws requires a “Lawgiver” (Isaiah 33:22; James 4:12). Light is NOT understood very well by humans, although much has been learned about light. Light is not just the “presence of photons”, but is much more complex than that. Do some research.
RT: “Do you know the laws of the heavens? (Job 38:33 NIV).
GW: Do I? Yes, I know some of them, e.g. the Law of Gravity. There are physicists who know more of them than you and I.
RT: “All parts of the universe are subject to the same simple laws of nature that we find here on earth” (American Museum of Natural History).
GW: This is a bit of a misconception. All parts of the universe behave in reliable ways which we describe by “natural laws.” These laws do not rule or govern. They are just descriptions, often expressed in mathematical equations.
RT: You’re simply in denial about some of Hawking’s views.
GW: I don’t think so, but you simply don’t know many of Hawking’s views. And you have misunderstood some of them. Soon you will be identifying Hawking as a theist, even though he was an atheist.
RT: The universe is not simply “described by natural laws”, as you like to think.
GW: False. We humans describe the regularities of structure and process in the universe by “natural laws.” The laws don’t rule or govern events. Natural laws don’t cause objects to move in certain ways. Natural laws describe how objects naturally move in certain ways.
RT: Hawking said, “I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws”,
GW: First, you have provided neither a citation nor a link. That is poor scholarship on your part. Secondly, if Hawking said this, then he was just mistaken. This shows that he was poor at the philosophy of science. Laws don’t govern. They are descriptions of the ways things work. Thirdly, Hawking means that if a god did exist (he didn’t believe any did exist), it would not perform miracles. You believe, however, that your own god does perform miracles. I really don’t know why you keep making reference to Hawking when he disagreed with you on most of these issues. He was an atheist! Why would you reference an atheist?
RT: and “The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron . . . the remarkable fact is that these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”,
GW: Where is your citation and link? Adjusted? Tuned? There is no good evidence for this speculation, even though Hawking might have mistakenly thought so. Hawking was a genius, but he was not infallible, of course.
RT: and “In real time, the universe has a beginning”.
GW: Citation and link? What other time is there, artificial time, imaginary time? The universe has many beginnings of different phases, but there is no good evidence that the universe had a beginning of its existence. It is likely that it is eternal. I have cited to you at least four scientists, currently living, who support the eternal universe theory.
RT: The existence of laws requires a “Lawgiver” (Isaiah 33:22; James 4:12).
GW: Here again you (and these authors) are confusing two types of laws. There are laws which describe how reality works, and they are called “natural laws.” But there are also laws which prescribe or prohibit behavior, and they are known as “legislated laws.” They are not the same thing.
RT: Light is NOT understood very well by humans, although much has been learned about light.
GW: I disagree. Light is well understood by humans, but much remains to be learned about it.
RT: Light is not just the “presence of photons”, but is much more complex than that. Do some research.
GW: Light is just the presence of photons. Do some research. Of course, photons have a specific nature different from that of other things.
You’re in denial about Hawking’s views. Here are some quotes (with references) of his: “Time itself must have a beginning” (“Inside the Mind of a Genius”, Readers Digest, Feb. 1984, 120). “Many people do not like the idea that time had a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention” (Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 46).
RT: You’re in denial about Hawking’s views.
GW: Which view?
RT: Here are some quotes (with references) of his: “Time itself must have a beginning” (“Inside the Mind of a Genius”, Readers Digest, Feb. 1984, 120).
GW: That was in 1984 and is not representative of his later views.
RT: “Many people do not like the idea that time had a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention” (Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 46).
GW: That was in 1997 and is not representative of his later views. Besides a beginning of time does not necessarily “smack of divine intervention.”
GW: You need to read The Grand Design Paperback, 2012, by Stephen Hawking (Author), Leonard Mlodinow
GW: But even if Hawking said that time had a beginning, could he even be correct about that? What would that mean? It would mean that God would not exist before the beginning of time since an act of creation must occur in time.
“”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” (Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One, 176). “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).
RT: “”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” (Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One, 176).
GW: But I cited four current cosmologists who disagree with Vilenkin.
RT: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).
GW: But this claim is false since God doesn’t exist, as shown by my argument, which you continue to evade.
GW: GW: Let’s get to the central issue and discuss this moral rule: “Person X should attempt to prevent any moderate to severe harm H1 to any person Y or group of persons Z, if and only if 1) X certainly or probably knows about the opportunity to help by prevention, 2) X is certainly or probably able to prevent the harm, 3) X will certainly or probably not die in the prevention attempt, 4) X will certainly or probably not be permanently injured in the prevention attempt, 5) X will certainly or probably not suffer greatly in the prevention attempt, 6) allowing H1 is probably or certainly not necessary to preventing greater harm H2, and 7) allowing H1 is probably or certainly not necessary to producing a benefit B which outweighs the harm H1. Any person X has a moral duty to attempt to prevent harm H1 if all seven of these contingencies are satisfied. Persons are moral if they attempt to prevent a moderate to severe harm when all seven relevant specific contingencies are met; otherwise they are immoral.”
GW: Now, do you agree or disagree with this moral rule? If you disagree, then present, explain, and defend your contrary opinion.
GW: I always give a direct response to whatever you claim, but you give a direct response to what I write only about half the time.
Cosmologists Arvind Borde and Alexander Vienkin, together with physicist Alan Guth, concluded that any universe expands on average throughout its history (a requirement for physical life to exist) must be traced back in finite time to an actual beginning that includes the creation of space and time (“Inflationary Spacetimes Are Incomplete in Past Directions, Physical Review Letters 90; April 15, 2003). The problem for atheists is that a cosmic beginning implies a cosmic Beginner, who creates beyond space-time (Genesis 1:1). The “moral argument” that you elucidate is too complicated to comment on, however, the Bible does give us moral principles that apply, and are highly superior to any concepts devised by humans.”Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to act” (Proverbs 3:27 NIV). Going even much farther than material possessions, “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love no one has than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:12,13 NIV). “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. If anyone has material posessions and sees a brother or a sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?” (1 John 3:16,17 NIV). Jesus said that loving one’s neighbor as oneself is the second greatest commandment (Matthew 22:39). When asked, “Who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29), Jesus gave the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which a despised Samaritan who went way out of his way to rescue a total stranger, an almost dead Jew (who very likely would not have done the same thing for him if their roles were reversed), whom his fellow pious Jews ignored (Luke 10:30-35). Jesus explained that we should treat everyone, even total strangers, and people very different than ourselves, as our “neighbor” by having “mercy” on them, and helping them any way that we can (Luke 10:36,37 NIV).
The purpose of this website is to promote belief in the one true Almighty God, and his holy inspired word, the Bible so as to assist people to gain eternal life (John 3:16; 17:3; 20:31; 2 Timothy 3:16,17), and not to engage in endless tit-for-tat debates, nor “controversies and quarrels about words” (1 Timothy 6:4 NIV). There are websites designed for that. If that’s what you want to do, go to those sites. These are the reasons that, we, at this site, do not go tit-for-tat with you.
The universe and all in it are confined to a single, finite dimension of time. Time constantly flows evenly in one direction only, into the future and never in reverse, or into the past. Because it has a beginning and flows only in one direction, cosmic time is really just half a dimension. Any entity confined to such a half-dimension of time must have some ultimate starting point of origination. That entity must be created, which is necessary for the universe and all that’s in it. According to the space-time theorems of general relativity, such effects as matter, energy, width, height, and time were caused independent of the time dimension of the universe. According to the Bible (2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2), such effects as grace and hope were caused independent of the time dimension of the universe. Therefore, both the Bible and general Relativity speak of at least one additional time dimension for God, since effects existed before time in this universe began.
RT: The universe and all in it are confined to a single, finite dimension of time.
GW: Neither you nor anybody else knows this to be true. If it were true, it would rule out God because he would exist eternally in an infinite dimension of time. I do believe that time is infinite and that God does not exist.
RT: Time constantly flows evenly in one direction only, into the future and never in reverse, or into the past.
GW: Time does flow in one direction, from the present to the future, but time EXTENDS in both directions and never ends. And so, I can make my claim that the universe is eternal, and you can make your claim that God is eternal.
RT: Because it has a beginning and flows only in one direction, cosmic time is really just half a dimension.
GW: Nonsense! You don’t know that time has a beginning; nobody knows such a thing as that. Time flows in one direction, but extends infinitely in both directions. If time were finite, then God could not exist before the beginning of time. Anything God could or would do would be an act in time!
RT: Any entity confined to such a half-dimension of time must have some ultimate starting point of origination. That entity must be created, which is necessary for the universe and all that’s in it.
GW: So, this would mean that God, if he existed, was created by someone or something after the beginning of time! This pretty much demolishes your own hypothesis. You invent new ideas which contradict your old or current ideas.
RT: According to the space-time theorems of general relativity, such effects as matter, energy, width, height, and time were caused independent of the time dimension of the universe. According to the Bible (2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2),
GW: Now you are contradicting yourself! You can’t postulate effects of time independent of time. You are very confused. Go back to the drawing board.
RT: such effects as grace and hope were caused independent of the time dimension of the universe.
GW: Once again, you are contradicting yourself. Causation is dependent on time. You just can’t abolish time, no matter how hard you try. If God did exist, even he would exist in time and act in time.
RT: Therefore, both the Bible and general Relativity speak of at least one additional time dimension for God, since effects existed before time in this universe began.
GW: The error in your thinking here is called “special pleading.” You invent a new time just for your favorite cartoon character to operate in. You are talking nonsensically. There is only one time and it is eternal in both directions, very probably. This means that the occurrence of events has continued forever, in both directions of time.
Time is universal, but it’s not two-directional, it’s one-directional, like traffic on a one way street. Science has proven that space-time began with the “Big Bang”, although God existed prior to that. Anything that had a beginning is finite, and time began at the “Big Bang”, according to science. The past is gone, it’s history. It can’t be reversed, like the water flowing down a waterfall, it can’t go backwards.
RT: Almighty God can operate however he wishes.
GW: Yes, but if he did exist, he would wish to do some things and wish not do other things. For example, he would wish to create a universe and he would do that. But he would not wish to enable a Covid pandemic and so he would prevent it. He would act only in accordance with his personality. If you don’t understand this, then you don’t understand the concept of God.
RT: “Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?” (Job 11:7 NIV). The implied answer is “no”.
GW: The correct answer is “mostly yes.” If you know what God’s traits would be, then you can make reasonable and accurate predictions of what his behavior would be. For example, if God is all powerful and perfectly moral, then he would prevent bone cancer in children and the Covid pandemic. Isn’t this obvious?
RT: Therefore, he can, and does, use intermediaries without any diminishment of his powers.
GW: Mostly false. If he did exist, although God could use intermediaries because he would be all powerful and free, he would not use intermediaries because that action would be inconsistent with his personality of being all knowing, perfectly rational, highly intelligent, perfectly moral, and all powerful. He would know that the use of intermediaries would lead to instability, confusion, disagreement, and conflict, and so he wouldn’t use them. Look what has happened in the real world with the conflicting claims of alleged intermediaries.
RT: “The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power” (Job 37:23 NIV).
GW: Even you don’t believe the first part of this claim. You mistakenly believe that God exists, has performed miracles, and has communicated his wishes in the Bible. None of those beliefs is true.
RT: “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe and shudder” (James 2:19 NIV).
GW: I believe that if God did exist, then he would be the only god, but I don’t shudder at this prospect. I would like it to be true, but of course it is not. See my argument for proof.
RT: This is not the kind of ‘belief’ that Jesus promoted. He said, “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46 NIV). ‘Doing what Jesus said’ is what makes one a Christian.
GW: No, it doesn’t. You are just confusing a Jesus follower with a Christian, and they are not the same thing. Christianity didn’t even exist during the life of Jesus. It was created after he died, mainly by Paul. Study the history.
RT: Jesus illustrated the kind of ‘belief’ that he promoted, and the kind of ‘belief’ he did not promote,
GW: Some of Christianity is based on what Jesus said and did. I think you might be a Jesus follower, but not a Christian.
RT: in Matthew 7:24-27: “Everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. the rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell down with a great crash” (NIV).
GW: Jesus believed that God exists, and he was mistaken about that, as we now know. He also believed that he was a messenger of God, and he was mistaken about that also.
RT: You have correctly identified “death” as being “non-existence”.
GW: Yes, that is what happens to all of us, including you and me. There is no escape.
RT: Jesus said, “I was dead” (Revelation 1:18), meaning he was non-existent, until he was “resurrected” “from the dead” (Acts 2:32 HCSB; Romans 1:4 NIV)).
GW: Jesus was dead at the time Revelation was written, and the writer of that book probably never met Jesus, and so we can’t trust the author’s alleged quotations of Jesus. But of course, when Jesus died he was nonexistent forever, despite the false claims that he came back to life.
RT: The Greek word “zoopoieo”, translated as “made alive” at 1 Peter 3:18 means being brought to life, as it is also at John 5:2; Romans 4:17; 8:11; 1 Corinthians 15:22,36,45.
GW: Yes, most Christians believe that Jesus came back to life. The evidence for this is insufficient, however, as I explained in my book. Re-read chapter 14. It’s all there.
RT: The fact most believe that Jesus’ executed corpse was resurrected doesn’t change the Biblical truth that “the body of Jesus Christ” was ‘sacrificed’, so completely consumed by God that nothing of it remained, in that sense being similar to “burnt offerings” under the Mosaic Law Covenant (Hebrews 10:5,6,10 NIV).
GW: You are just imputing a meaning to “sacrificed” here which most Christians don’t agree with. They interpret it as atonement.
GW: Let’s get to the central issue and discuss this moral rule: “Person X should attempt to prevent any moderate to severe harm H1 to any person Y or group of persons Z, if and only if 1) X certainly or probably knows about the opportunity to help by prevention, 2) X is certainly or probably able to prevent the harm, 3) X will certainly or probably not die in the prevention attempt, 4) X will certainly or probably not be permanently injured in the prevention attempt, 5) X will certainly or probably not suffer greatly in the prevention attempt, 6) allowing H1 is probably or certainly not necessary to preventing greater harm H2, and 7) allowing H1 is probably or certainly not necessary to producing a benefit B which outweighs the harm H1. Any person X has a moral duty to attempt to prevent harm H1 if all seven of these contingencies are satisfied. Persons are moral if they attempt to prevent a moderate to severe harm when all seven relevant specific contingencies are met; otherwise they are immoral.”
GW: Now, do you agree or disagree with this moral rule? If you disagree, then present, explain, and defend your contrary opinion.
RT: Cosmologists Arvind Borde and Alexander Vienkin, together with physicist Alan Guth, concluded that any universe expands on average throughout its history (a requirement for physical life to exist) must be traced back in finite time to an actual beginning that includes the creation of space and time (“Inflationary Spacetimes Are Incomplete in Past Directions, Physical Review Letters 90; April 15, 2003).
GW: Did any of these three men express an opinion that God created space and time? Of course not! The percentage of physicists which express that opinion is small. Within physics today the consensus is that we don’t know what happened prior to the Big Bang, if anything. It is one big Unknown. Speculations are plentiful, but your speculation is among the least likely. Following Reason, NOBODY should BELIEVE that your speculation is true.
RT: The problem for atheists is that a cosmic beginning implies a cosmic Beginner, who creates beyond space-time (Genesis 1:1).
GW: That is blatantly false! The term “beginning” has different meanings, and you can read about them in my book, on bottom of page 58, top of page 59. There is one type of beginning, which neither you nor I believe has occurred – a beginning of the existence of the universe from nothing to something. But regardless of the type of beginning that we focus on, no beginning necessarily implies or requires a beginner or creator! There are at least two other possibilities: 1) A random spontaneous beginning with no cause. Or 2) A beginning with a natural cause. Even if you suppose there was a beginner or creator, there are still two other possibilities besides God: 1) Some other god who is not God. Or 2) An advanced alien who came from another universe other than our own. Your greatest mistake is to think you know something you do NOT know. This is the mistake sometimes known as PRIDE or ARROGANCE. Your hypothesis that God created our universe is the least probable among the candidate hypotheses. I have given you three reasons why my hypothesis, i.e. that the universe is eternal, is the most probable among the candidates.
GW: I sometimes wonder why people like yourself take the least probable hypothesis about origins and magically elevate it to the most probable hypothesis or even to a certain thing. I think the reason is that when people feel out of control or are actually out of control of events in their lives, they invent or endorse an imaginary parent figure who has total control over everything. This is especially evident when they ponder their own death. The imaginary god gives them the illusion of control.
RT: The “moral argument” that you elucidate is too complicated to comment on, however,…
GW: In my recent posts I asked you to focus your attention on a SINGLE moral rule, not an entire moral argument. The individual parts of it are clear, and I don’t accept your claim that it is “too complicated.” If you don’t understand the rule, then ask me questions about it and I will help you understand it.
GW: Here is the moral rule once again for you to ponder: Person X should attempt to prevent any moderate to severe harm H1 to any person Y or group of persons Z, if and only if 1) X certainly or probably knows about the opportunity to help by prevention, 2) X is certainly or probably able to prevent the harm, 3) X will certainly or probably not die in the prevention attempt, 4) X will certainly or probably not be permanently injured in the prevention attempt, 5) X will certainly or probably not suffer greatly in the prevention attempt, 6) allowing H1 is probably or certainly not necessary to preventing greater harm H2, and 7) allowing H1 is probably or certainly not necessary to producing a benefit B which outweighs the harm H1. Any person X has a moral duty to attempt to prevent harm H1 if all seven of these contingencies are satisfied. Persons are moral if they attempt to prevent a moderate to severe harm when all seven relevant specific contingencies are met; otherwise they are immoral.
RT: the Bible does give us moral principles that apply, and are highly superior to any concepts devised by humans.
GW: Please state any moral rule on prevention which is presented by any Bible author, and then we can debate it.
RT: ”Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to act” (Proverbs 3:27 NIV).
GW: That’s relevant. This rule has some similarity to the rule I presented, if “do not withhold good” is interpreted to mean “prevent.” So, if God did exist, he would follow this rule and thus he would prevent the Covid pandemic. But we had the pandemic anyway. Therefore, God does not exist.
RT: Going even much farther than material possessions, “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love no one has than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:12,13 NIV).
GW: This moral rule does not apply to all persons. It is not universal in scope. If God did exist, he could not lay down his life for those he loved since he would be eternal by nature. However, he could and would use his power to prevent the Covid pandemic because he loved the humans he created. But we had the pandemic anyway. Therefore, God does not exist.
RT: “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. If anyone has material posessions and sees a brother or a sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?” (1 John 3:16,17 NIV).
GW: Again, if he existed God could not lay down his life for us. There are other ways to show love, and one is to use whatever power you have to prevent moderate to severe harms from occurring to other persons.
RT: Jesus said that loving one’s neighbor as oneself is the second greatest commandment (Matthew 22:39).
GW: This is relevant. An indicator of loving oneself is preventing moderate to severe harm to oneself, when one has the power to do so. And so loving one’s neighbor as oneself would include preventing moderate to severe harm to other persons, when one has the power to do so. Thus, if God followed this rule, then he would prevent the Covid pandemic. But we have it anyway. Therefore, God does not exist.
RT: When asked, “Who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29), Jesus gave the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which a despised Samaritan who went way out of his way to rescue a total stranger, an almost dead Jew (who very likely would not have done the same thing for him if their roles were reversed), whom his fellow pious Jews ignored (Luke 10:30-35). Jesus explained that we should treat everyone, even total strangers, and people very different than ourselves, as our “neighbor” by having “mercy” on them, and helping them any way that we can (Luke 10:36,37 NIV).
GW: Yes, if God did exist, he would regard EVERY OTHER person as his neighbor. And so, he would use his power to prevent the Covid pandemic for ravaging the human species. But we have it anyway. Therefore, God does not exist.
GW: Even these moral rules which you have presented from your favorite book undermine the existence of God.
GW: Now, focus your attention on the SINGLE moral rule I have presented to you numerous times and I presented above. Do you agree that it is correct? If you do not, then explain what you think is wrong with it and we can debate that. Be an opponent with integrity – address challenges which I directly present to you; don’t evade them.
In a Free Inquiry article, particle physicist Gary Stenger claimed there had to be a natural spontaneous generation process followed by some “natural processes of self-organization” as the way to avoid the need for God’s participation (“The Face of Chaos”, Winter 1992/93, p 14). His appeal to spontaneous self-generation at the moment the universe began, followed by billions of years of of self-organization that continues on through the present is purely speculative. The is not one single example of any significant self-generation or self-organization (one that involves order, complexity, function, and purpose) that can be found in the entire realm of nature. Without causation, nothing happens, and without organization by an intelligent being, systems tend toward lower and lower levels of complexity, function, and purpose. Yes, both the Bible and the facts of science indicate that “the Lord God Almighty . . . created all things” (Revelation 4:8,11 NIV).
RT: In a Free Inquiry article, particle physicist Gary Stenger claimed there had to be a natural spontaneous generation process followed by some “natural processes of self-organization” as the way to avoid the need for God’s participation (“The Face of Chaos”, Winter 1992/93, p 14).
GW: I doubt his name was “Gary Stenger.” Please recheck that. Here you are paraphrasing, not quoting the author, so I won’t directly comment. There is no need for God’s participation to start with.
RT: His appeal to spontaneous self-generation at the moment the universe began, followed by billions of years of of self-organization that continues on through the present is purely speculative.
GW: We need a good definition of “self-generation.” It could mean “the development or unfolding of something according to reliable natural processes, which can be described with natural laws.” And so, this concept could apply not only to the universe from the time of the primordial particle but also to the human organism from the time of the zygote.
RT: There is not one single example of any significant self-generation or self-organization (one that involves order, complexity, function, and purpose) that can be found in the entire realm of nature.
GW: I just presented two examples to you.
RT: Without causation, nothing happens,…
GW: I tend to agree with you, but that claim is not proven. There seem to be some events without a cause, e.g. nuclear decay. Is it possible that the Big Bang was uncaused? Yes, it is possible, although I think that is unlikely. I think there was a specific natural cause, force, or process, unknown at this time.
RT: and without organization by an intelligent being, systems tend toward lower and lower levels of complexity, function, and purpose.
GW: But levels of complexity, function, and purpose can increase locally and temporarily, as long as the overall totals of these increase in the universe. We see this in the phenomenon of life. No god is necessary for any of this.
RT: Yes, both the Bible and the facts of science indicate that “the Lord God Almighty . . . created all things” (Revelation 4:8,11 NIV).
GW: False. Science certainly does not indicate that. And the Bible’s indication of that is false, since we now know that God does not exist. Every verse in the Bible which even mentions God is false. See my argument for the details of disproof.
Let’s set one thing straight: “JESUS CHRIST [not Almighty God] LAID DOWN HIS LIFE for us” (1 John 3:16 NIV). “Yahweh . . . never dies” (Habakkuk 1:12 NJB), because he has always been “eternal” (1 Timothy 1:17 NIV), existing from “eternity to eternity” (Psalm 90:2 NAB). “The LORD [Yahweh] is a merciful God” (Deuteronomy 4:31 NIV). Jesus said, “love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:35,36 NIV). Since his “ways are higher than [our] ways and [his] thoughts [higher] than [our] thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9 NIV) his mercy is much greater than all humanity’s combined. He has his reasons for allowing the Covid-19 pandemic, just as he has also for all other problems in the world. but this in only temporary. He will undo all the bad at the perfect time in the future (Isaiah 65:17; Revelation 21:4).
RT: Let’s set one thing straight: “JESUS CHRIST [not Almighty God] LAID DOWN HIS LIFE for us” (1 John 3:16 NIV).
GW: Did he? We gained nothing by his “suicide by cop.” He would have done more good had he just avoided Jerusalem and preached in the countryside. He would have done more good had he killed those who intended to crucify him on the spot.
RT: “Yahweh . . . never dies” (Habakkuk 1:12 NJB), because he has always been “eternal” (1 Timothy 1:17 NIV), existing from “eternity to eternity” (Psalm 90:2 NAB).
GW: Yes, if God did exist, he could not sacrifice his life for anybody since he would be eternal. We agree on that point. And that is why your submission of 1 John 3:16,17 NIV was not helpful.
RT: “The LORD [Yahweh] is a merciful God” (Deuteronomy 4:31 NIV).
GW: Would he be? What does that mean? If he did exist, then would he be merciful enough to prevent the Covid pandemic? The word “merciful” has more than one meaning.
RT: Jesus said, “love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:35,36 NIV).
GW: Were the victims of Covid God’s enemies, if God existed? If so, then God would have loved them, saved them, and prevented the pandemic. You just can’t get around the conundrum, can you?
RT: Since his “ways are higher than [our] ways and [his] thoughts [higher] than [our] thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9 NIV) his mercy is much greater than all humanity’s combined.
GW: If that were true, then God would definitely have prevented the Covid pandemic. What greater mercy can there be than to prevent a moderate to severe harm affecting millions of persons? BTW, if God did exist “his ways” would be perfectly rational and moral. When we use REASON to guide our ways, we approximate God’s ways, if he did exist. That is the very best we can do. The moral rule on prevention which I presented to you, but which you refuse to discuss, was devised by REASON.
RT: He has his reasons for allowing the Covid-19 pandemic, just as he has also for all other problems in the world.
GW: Ok, now we are getting somewhere – you are starting to debate my argument, and this is good. If God did exist, then his reasons would need to be good reasons, not bad reasons. Please prove that it is even possible for God to have good reasons for allowing the Covid-19 pandemic. I don’t see how that is even possible. What form would a good reason take? Present some possible good reasons why God would allow the pandemic, if he existed. I don’t think you will do well at answering any of these questions and challenges, but let’s see.
GW: If God did exist and he had good reasons for allowing the pandemic, then we would already know those reasons! Why? Because he would have presented them to us. Duh. No all-powerful and perfectly moral person is going to hide good reasons for allowing harm which he could have prevented!
RT: but this in only temporary. He will undo all the bad at the perfect time in the future (Isaiah 65:17; Revelation 21:4).
GW: That is just rubbish. It is immoral to allow any moderate to severe harm to occur to other persons, even temporarily, when you have the power to prevent it. And if God did exist, he would be all powerful and perfectly moral, and so he would not even allow the pandemic TEMPORARILY. To temporarily allow harm to people and then compensate them for it later is a worse outcome than preventing the same harm in the first place and then later giving them some benefit equal to what would have been the compensation. Given two choices, God would always implement the one with the highest benefit-to-harm ratio. Why? Because he would be all powerful, perfectly rational, and perfectly moral. Now, maybe your lesser god, Tuckergod, would not do this, but why should anybody worship him? He would be either amoral or immoral. Which is it?
GW: Now you are actually starting to debate my argument. Let’s see how far you get.
Although mercy is primarily used nowadays to indicate a withholding of punishment, that is not the primary way it used in the Bible. The parable of the Good Samaritan illustrates the main way “mercy” is used in the Bible (Luke 10:27-37), which is to help someone in need. God has come to the aid of humanity, in the best way possible, for an eternal solution. “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood–to be received by faith” (Romans 3:25 NIV). The free will that God allowed humans allowed them to make choices without his direct intervention. Yes, many terrible things happen due to human rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 32:4,5; Ecclesiastes 7:29). In the long run, however, all problems will be resolved, even the memory of them (Isaiah 65:17; Revelation 21:4,5).
RT: Although mercy is primarily used nowadays to indicate a withholding of punishment, that is not the primary way it used in the Bible. The parable of the Good Samaritan illustrates the main way “mercy” is used in the Bible (Luke 10:27-37), which is to help someone in need.
GW: I think you have correctly identified the two main definitions of “mercy.”
RT: God has come to the aid of humanity, in the best way possible, for an eternal solution.
GW: Absolutely not! If he did exist, God would prevent moderate to severe harms for humanity, and this would be the best thing he could do.
RT: “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood–to be received by faith” (Romans 3:25 NIV).
GW: For all religions in the history of humankind that may be the dumbest idea of all! If God did exist, he would establish a system of perfect justice and atonement could not and would not be a part of it. Atonement violates the principle of individual accountability because it transfers the guilt and punishment deserved for wrong doing by one person to another person who has not done the wrong doing and thus does not deserve the punishment. Completely irrational. And drawing blood through an assault makes it even worse.
GW: How would you like to be punished for the wrong doing of another person? How would you like for your children, if you have any, to be punished for your wrong doing? Surely you see the problem with atonement, don’t you?
RT: The free will that God allowed humans allowed them to make choices without his direct intervention.
GW: This is fallacious on many grounds. First, we don’t even know yet that we have free will. This is a controversy within science. All our decisions may be determined by prior factors. At most, our decisions may be only partly free. Secondly, God does not exist, as others and I have proven. Thirdly, if God did exist, at most he would only grant partial free will. For example, he would never grant men the free will to rape women. If he did, that would be enabling rape and would be immoral. But God would be perfectly moral. So, you see the problem. This is one more way we know that God does not exist.
RT: Yes, many terrible things happen due to human rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 32:4,5; Ecclesiastes 7:29).
GW: The Covid pandemic and bone cancer in children have absolutely nothing to do with rebellion against any god! If you think otherwise, then present your case for that.
RT: In the long run, however, all problems will be resolved, even the memory of them (Isaiah 65:17; Revelation 21:4,5).
GW: Absolute nonsense! If God did exist, most problems would be PREVENTED, not resolved over some long period of time. If God did exist, he would be all-powerful and perfectly moral, and so he would PREVENT all moderate to severe harms, such as the Covid pandemic, bone cancer in children, the Holocaust, and men raping women. But we have these harms. Therefore, God does not exist.
GW: I’m afraid you really don’t understand the concept of God. The lesser god you worship, the Tuckergod, is either amoral or immoral. Which is it?
“Not everyone has faith” (2 Thessalonians 3:2 NIV). It’s your choice. “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1 NIV).
RT: The purpose of this website is to promote belief in the one true Almighty God, and his holy inspired word, the Bible so as to assist people to gain eternal life (John 3:16; 17:3; 20:31; 2 Timothy 3:16,17),
GW: The main problem with that purpose is that God does not exist. If you cannot refute my argument that God does not exist, then your purpose for the website is worthless.
RT: and not to engage in endless tit-for-tat debates,
GW: What do you expect? That everyone will just bow down to whatever you spout on the website? That ain’t gonna happen.
RT: nor “controversies and quarrels about words” (1 Timothy 6:4 NIV).
GW: The discussion of the meanings of words is essential in the fields of philosophy and religion, really in just about every field.
RT: There are websites designed for that. If that’s what you want to do, go to those sites.
GW: I already participate in several websites. I engage in debate on all of them.
RT: These are the reasons that, we, at this site, do not go tit-for-tat with you.
GW: If you make a public claim of truth, which you have done on your website, then you have a moral obligation to explain and defend your claim against criticism and to go tit-for-tat in debating the claim. You claim God exists. I claim that God does not exist. I have presented a sound proof for my position, but you unethically evade debating it. I am about 50% of your viewership.
GW: BTW, you already go tit-for-tat with me, but you just cherry pick the issues you want to debate and not debate.
This website has many, other than yourself, who view it. For example, there were 41 views yesterday. We follow the principle at 1 Peter 3:15 to, “always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks of you the reason for the hope in you” (NAB), while balancing the principle at 1 Timothy 6:4, to avoid “arguments and . . . disputes” (NAB).
RT: This website has many, other than yourself, who view it. For example, there were 41 views yesterday.
GW: The number of views does not necessarily equal the number of viewers since one viewer may view several times. I rarely see responses from people other than myself. By far, I am your greatest responder.
RT: We follow the principle at 1 Peter 3:15 to, “always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks of you the reason for the hope in you” (NAB),
GW: And so, you should always be ready to respond to my total argument and to the moral rule on prevention which I presented to you.
RT: while balancing the principle at 1 Timothy 6:4, to avoid “arguments and . . . disputes” (NAB).
GW: You can’t avoid disputes if you express your opinions in public, nor should you even try.
RT: Time is universal, but it’s not two-directional, it’s one-directional, like traffic on a one way street.
GW: That is blatantly false. Time flows in one direction, i.e. forward into the future. But time is two-directional. Have you ever heard of the past? You got married in the past. You were a child in the past. You were born in the past. WWII occurred in the past. The Big Bang occurred in the past. So, time is bi-directional. To deny this fact is worse than denying the fact that Trump lost the 2020 election.
RT: Science has proven that space-time began with the “Big Bang”, although God existed prior to that.
GW: Absolutely not! Science has proven no such thing. We have no knowledge about what happened before the Big Bang, if anything, but you keep pretending that you do know. This is the height of arrogance. I thought your religion preached humility. We have offered valid arguments that God does not exist and you have no answer and no rebuttal for them. If God did exist, he could not exist prior to time because an act of creation must occur in time. Your claim here is mistaken in every way.
RT: Anything that had a beginning is finite,
GW: I agree.
RT: and time began at the “Big Bang”, according to science.
GW: You are fantasizing. See above. There is no consensus among scientists regarding time. You would know this if you had more education and read more in physics, cosmology, and philosophy.
RT: The past is gone, it’s history.
GW: You have contradicted yourself again. Since there is a past, as you admit here, time is bi-directional.
RT: It can’t be reversed, like the water flowing down a waterfall, it can’t go backwards.
GW: We agree on that point. But it is more likely that time extends infinitely in both directions, the past and the future, than that it had a beginning. If time had a beginning, that would be like getting something from nothing. How could that happen?
GW: You agree that time is flowing towards the future. I just go one step further – time has ALWAYS been flowing towards the future. Why would you think otherwise? You can’t get something from nothing. Nothing cannot produce anything, even time.
Science/Astronomy have proven beyond any doubt that the universe is not eternal, but had a beginning. Anything that has a beginning has a cause (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 3:4). The universe had to have been caused by a supernal power that operates outside of time and space. We’re sorry if you don’t like the facts, but, then again, flat-earthers don’t like the facts either
RT: Science/Astronomy have proven beyond any doubt that the universe is not eternal, but had a beginning.
GW: Why do you keep promoting these falsehoods? Do you also promote the falsehood that Donald Trump won the 2020 election?
GW: Videos on Did the Universe Begin?
1 Sean Carroll – Did the Universe Begin?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgpvCxDL7q4
“We still don’t know the answer to the question ‘Did the universe begin?’” at 0:0:13
2. Roger Penrose – Did the Universe Begin?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFqjA5ekmoY
“Of course it’s an endless chain that goes on forever.” At 10:45
3. Did the Universe Have a Beginning? | Episode 1201 | Closer To Truth
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-infospace-040&ei=UTF-8&hsimp=yhs-040&hspart=infospace¶m1=a69kckmh4v8g8bwk7ty5iiif&p=Closer+to+truth+episode+1201&type=ud-c-us–s-p-era3edek–exp-none–subid-none#id=1&vid=acd0ae80f1584a1f10c1f8a5e8288294&action=click
Anthony Aguerre: “The universe is 13.7 billion years old plus a number between 0 and infinity old.” “That inflation process in some versions will keep going on forever.” “We don’t know what happened before that [our period of inflation].” “There is no reason to say that it [inflation] started at any particular time.”
Rodney Holder (physicist and theologian): “God is ontologically prior to the universe, but not necessarily temporarily. God is not really needed to light the blue touch paper.”
Dirk Evers (theologian): “A beginning to the universe is not necessary to consider God as a creator. He can be the eternal reason for an eternal creation.”
Leonard Miladinow (physicist and author with Stephen Hawking of “The Grand Design”): “Time becomes so warped that it doesn’t have the meaning that we think it has today.” “It [time] doesn’t really have a beginning in the way we think of it.” “It [the universe] did not have a beginning in the usual sense because you can’t trace time back that far.”
GW: Modern Physicists and Cosmologists on Time and Beginnings:
Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok:
“The cyclic model of the universe challenges this point of view, suggesting that the big bang was not the beginning of time but rather a violent transition between two stages of cosmic evolution, with a ‘before’ and an ‘after’. In fact, according to the cyclic model, the big bang in our past was caused by a strange substance that is now starting to take over the universe and that will eventually lead to the next big bang in our future, and the one after that.” P. 38.
“The cyclic tale pictures a universe in which galaxies, stars, and life have been formed over and over again long before the most recent big bang, and will be remade cycle after cycle far into the future.” P. 61.
“In contrast to the inflationary model, the cyclic story has an overarching principle that ties its components together: cosmic evolution is endlessly repeating with no beginning or end.” P. 67 [Emphasis mine]
“No form of energy in the past or the future goes out of existence.” P. 68.
“Hawking and Penrose’s finding was widely interpreted as theoretical proof that space and time must have a ‘beginning.’ That interpretation, however, was never justified. What they really proved is that Einstein’s equations become mathematically inconsistent at the big bang itself.” P. 185.
Source: Steinhardt, Paul, and Neil Turok. Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang. New York: Doubleday, 2007. Print.
Bojowald, Martin:
“But infinity as the result of a physical theory simply means that the theory has been stretched beyond its limits; its equations lose all meaning at such a place. In the case of the big bang model, one should not misunderstand the breakdown of equations as the prediction of a beginning of the world, even though it is often presented in this way. A point in time at which a mathematical equation results in an infinite value is not the beginning (nor the end) of time; it is rather a place where the theory shows its limitations.” P. 4-5.
“Loop quantum gravity in particular, one of the variants currently put forward as a possible combination of general relativity and quantum theory, has provided first results concerning a nonsingular description of the big bang. In this framework, the universe existed before the big bang, and one can roughly estimate how it could have differed from what we see now.” P. 6.
“Singularities are avoided in any case by quantum repulsive forces, easily providing a cyclic model… It is an ideal starting point for a universe that initially, an infinite amount of time ago, spends its time in a very simple form only to go out and develop ever more innumerable cycles.: P 254.
“Loop quantum cosmology always provides time before the big bang, but not a starting point of the universe a finite time ago.” P. 255.
Source: Bojowald, Martin. Once Before Time: A Whole Story of the Universe. New York: Knopf. 2010. Print.
RT: Anything that has a beginning has a cause (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 3:4).
GW: Maybe. You and I tend to agree with this idea. Radioactive decay may be a counter example.
RT: The universe had to have been caused by a supernal power that operates outside of time and space.
GW: Please define “supernal.”
GW: What good evidence do you have that anything exists outside of time and space? To “exist” means to “occupy an area within space and time.” If God did exist, he would occupy an area of space and time. In fact, by definition God exists everywhere at once and eternally. So, there you go.
RT: We’re sorry if you don’t like the facts, but, then again, flat-earthers don’t like the facts either
GW: We’re sorry if you don’t like the facts, but then again, those who deny the Big Bang, evolution, that Donald Trump lost the election, and that God does not exist don’t like these facts either.
“Supernal” is a typo for “supernatural”. God does occupy a specific area of space and time, although his existence is “from eternity [prior to the universe] to eternity” (Psalm 90:2 NAB). For example, “Then hear from heaven, your dwelling place” (1 Kings 8:43 NIV). However, “the arm of the LORD [Yahweh] is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear” (Isaiah 59:1 NIV). He has the ultimate control over the entire universe and everything in it, as the Bible expresses metaphorically. There is no escaping from him. “Though they dig down to the depths below, from there my hand will take them. Though they climb up to the heavens above, from there I will bring them down. Though they hide themselves on the top of Carmel, there I will hunt them down and seize them. Though they from my eyes at the bottom of the sea, there I will command the serpent to bite them” (Amos 9:2,3 NIV).
The laws of thermodynamics, Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the observations of astronomy (such as the red shifts of stars and galaxies over time) all point to a creation event. “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the Big Bang and the Christian notion of creation from nothing” (George Smoot). The standard cosmological model of modern science describes a creation event that defies atheism, but harmonizes with the Bible.
RT: “Supernal” is a typo for “supernatural”.
GW: Ok, thanks for the correction.
RT: God does occupy a specific area of space and time, although his existence is “from eternity [prior to the universe] to eternity” (Psalm 90:2 NAB).
GW: That’s not quite correct. If God did exist, he would occupy all of space, not a specific area. If God did exist, he would occupy all of time (eternity), not a specific area. Or you could accurately say that he would occupy ALL specific areas of space and time.
RT: For example, “Then hear from heaven, your dwelling place” (1 Kings 8:43 NIV).
GW: I’m ambivalent about this. The theistic philosophers have said that if God exists, he exists everywhere at once. Does it matter to an evaluation of my argument? I don’t think so. Wherever God would reside, he would know about the Covid virus because he would be all-knowing.
RT: However, “the arm of the LORD [Yahweh] is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear” (Isaiah 59:1 NIV). He has the ultimate control over the entire universe and everything in it, as the Bible expresses metaphorically. There is no escaping from him.
GW: Yes, I agree. This just means that he would be all-knowing and all-powerful, as indicated in the standard definition of God.
RT: “Though they dig down to the depths below, from there my hand will take them. Though they climb up to the heavens above, from there I will bring them down. Though they hide themselves on the top of Carmel, there I will hunt them down and seize them. Though they from my eyes at the bottom of the sea, there I will command the serpent to bite them” (Amos 9:2,3 NIV).
GW: Yes, if God did exist, he would implement a perfect system of justice from which nobody would escape, not even you.
RT: The laws of thermodynamics, Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the observations of astronomy (such as the red shifts of stars and galaxies over time) all point to a creation event.
GW: They certainly do not point to a creation event any more than they point to a transition event. This is the problem with all arguments for the existence of God which have so far been presented, including all the ones you have presented: They are equivocal or inconclusive. But my arguments that God does not exist are unequivocal and conclusive. That is why you try to evade them.
RT: “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the Big Bang and the Christian notion of creation from nothing” (George Smoot).
GW: I think you must have misquoted Smoot here. Read the sentence carefully. Nevertheless, the Big Bang does not contradict the idea that God created the universe from nothing. The two ideas are consistent with each other. However, the Big Bang is also consistent with many other ideas like an eternal universe or a multiverse.
RT: The standard cosmological model of modern science describes a creation event that defies atheism, but harmonizes with the Bible.
GW: You are speaking a falsehood here, claiming to know something which no human person knows. You have no excuse for speaking this particular falsehood since I have given you a massive amount of information to show that your conclusion is unwarranted, unfounded, and unjustified. Besides, if there were a creation event, it might have been caused by an alien from another universe and atheism would still be valid. Atheism is the position of having no belief in any gods. Atheists, like myself, believe that aliens probably exist on other planets in the universe.
GW: However, I want to return to an earlier point in our discussion a few days ago when you actually began to address my argument. I will first repeat what you and I said:
RT: He has his reasons for allowing the Covid-19 pandemic, just as he has also for all other problems in the world.
GW: Ok, now we are getting somewhere – you are starting to debate my argument, and this is good. If God did exist, then his reasons would need to be good reasons, not bad reasons. Please prove that it is even possible for God to have good reasons for allowing the Covid-19 pandemic. I don’t see how that is even possible. What form would a good reason take? Present some possible good reasons why God would allow the pandemic, if he existed. I don’t think you will do well at answering any of these questions and challenges, but let’s see.
GW: You never answered these questions and challenges. You never followed up on this issue, so I will follow up on it. There are only seven possible good reasons to allow significant harm to others:
1. You lack knowledge of the probable harm.
2. You probably lack the power to prevent the harm.
3. You probably would be killed in an attempt to prevent the harm.
4. You probably would be significantly injured in an attempt to prevent the harm.
5. You probably would suffer significantly in an attempt to prevent the harm.
6. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to prevent a greater harm.
7. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to produce a greater compensating benefit.
But if God did exist, because of his nature he could and would not have any of these good reasons to allow the harm. Traits of his nature would include: all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, perfectly invincible, and perfectly rational. It would not be possible for God to have any of the seven possible good reasons or excuses to allow the harm. And so, he would necessarily prevent the harm, if he did exist.
GW: Furthermore, if God ever did have any good reasons to allow harm, he would declare these reasons to everybody, but especially to the victims and their families. No all-powerful and perfectly moral person is going to hide good reasons for allowing harm which he could have prevented!
The scientific evidence for the existence of God is just too great for atheists to overcome. The fact that galaxies are distributed more densely–and quasars become abundant–the farther we look into space indicates that the universe has changed with time. These observations argue against any static or steady state, or eternal universe, theory, and for a creation event. The multiverse or alien creator(s) ideas purely speculative, with zero supporting evidence. Without an extremely hot, dense creation event, the large amount of helium in the universe today cannot be explained.
GW: The software you have chosen for your website does not always allow responses immediately after your comments, and so I must make them at the end.
RT: “Not everyone has faith” (2 Thessalonians 3:2 NIV).
GW: Yes, and it is a really good thing that not everyone has faith since faith is a vice, not a virtue. Specifically what is faith? Faith is belief untuned to or misaligned with evidence and/or logic, and usually tuned to or aligned solely or primarily with authority, majority opinion, peer pressure, tradition, intuition, wishes, or some combination of these. (Having faith leads to poor judgement and bad behavior, and thus it is a vice.)
RT: It’s your choice.
GW: But are our choices free, random, or determined? This is a controversial topic in itself, but as long as you think I have a free choice, I choose reason rather than faith.
RT: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1 NIV).
GW: But the wise person says it aloud! God does not exist, and this has been proven. You have not refuted any of the proofs.
Your responses are easily seen on this end, so it’s OK. You’re confusing the definition of “credulity” (blind belief or trust not based on facts), with the Biblical definition of “faith.” “Faith is the confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1 NIV). “God created mankind in his own image” (Genesis 1:27 NIV), which means humans are free moral agents, and can choose to do good, or bad.
RT: Your responses are easily seen on this end, so it’s OK.
GW: Good.
RT: You’re confusing the definition of “credulity” (blind belief or trust not based on facts), with the Biblical definition of “faith.”
GW: They all overlap.
RT: “Faith is the confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1 NIV).
GW: This is subsumed by my definition of “faith.” “What we do not see” refers to lack of sufficient evidence. “Confidence in what we hope” refers to wishful thinking. So, by this definition faith is wishing something were true, e.g. the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus, based on little or no supporting evidence.
RT: “God created mankind in his own image” (Genesis 1:27 NIV), which means humans are free moral agents, and can choose to do good, or bad.
GW: As I said, we do not yet know if our choices are free, random, determined, or some combination of these. Choice theory is hotly debated in the fields of neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy. So, set that aside for the time being.
GW: Nevertheless, if God did exist, he would in practice be less free than you and I are since God would never choose to do bad or evil. This is how we know that he doesn’t exist. To allow such things as the Covid pandemic, bone cancer in children, and the Holocaust, when you could prevent these, would be immoral. But we know that if God did exist, he would be perfectly moral and all-powerful. And yet we have Covid, bone cancer, and the Holocaust anyway. Therefore, God does not exist. This is clear as a blue sky. I don’t know why you can’t or don’t understand it.
People have “faith” in people and institutions that are much less important than God. For example, based on solid evidence, you (and millions of others) have “faith” that your Social Security and retirement money will be deposited each month into your bank account around a certain time, and plan your finances around this. We have infinitely greater evidence of God’s existence than any of these human examples. “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command” (Hebrews 11:3 NIV).”The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands . . . They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their [metaphorical] voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4 NIV). “Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything” (Hebrews 3:4 NIV). “It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo–Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness” (Physicist Edmund Whittaker). “We do, of course, have an alternative. We could say that there was no creation, and that the universe has always been here. But this is even more difficult to accept than creation” (Physicist Barry Parker).
RT: People have “faith” in people and institutions that are much less important than God.
GW: I only use the religious definition of “faith,” for example “I have faith that God exists” or “I have faith that Muhammad was the messenger of God” or “I have faith that Jesus came back to life.” For other contexts I use words like “trust” or “confidence.” Trust and confidence are often well founded, but faith never is.
RT: For example, based on solid evidence, you (and millions of others) have “faith” that your Social Security and retirement money will be deposited each month into your bank account around a certain time, and plan your finances around this.
GW: I trust that process will occur and I have good evidence for my trust – the reliability of past payments. In the religious area the evidence is deficient, and this is the reason we call it “faith.”
RT: We have infinitely greater evidence of God’s existence than any of these human examples.
GW: Nonsense. Not only is the evidence for God very weak, as I have shown, but we have valid arguments that God does not exist, arguments so strong that you even evade discussion of them! You fear that if you came to understand these arguments, then you would need to convert to secular humanism.
RT: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command” (Hebrews 11:3 NIV).”
GW: False. God does not exist.
RT: The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands . . . They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their [metaphorical] voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4 NIV).
GW: The skies have asteroids which have done grave damage to the Earth in the past and which still could in the future. If God did exist, he would never allow these asteroids to get even close to us. And the skies have many other dangers.
RT: “Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything” (Hebrews 3:4 NIV).
GW: This is the same old argument from analogy:
1. Intelligent agents, i.e. human persons, construct buildings and machines which are orderly and complex.
2. There are orderly and complex objects in the universe which surely must have been constructed by one or more intelligent agents similar to human persons.
3. The intelligent agent constructing these objects must have been God.
Premise #1 is true. Premise #2 is false or unproven. And the conclusion at #3 is also false or unproven. There is no good evidence in support of #2. But even if #2 were true, the responsible intelligent agent could be an advanced alien or a god besides.
RT: “It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo–Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness” (Physicist Edmund Whittaker).
GW: You seem to have misquoted here. Nevertheless, the simplest explanation of our universe is that it has existed forever. It doesn’t need a beginning, a cause, or an intelligent agent as a creator. It just is what it is. The universe is just the totality of orderly-dynamic energy-matter in space-time.
RT: “We do, of course, have an alternative. We could say that there was no creation, and that the universe has always been here. But this is even more difficult to accept than creation” (Physicist Barry Parker).
GW: I disagree. Why is eternal existence of the universe difficult for anyone to accept? Try it; it’s easy.
The Edmund Whittaker quote is accurate!
RT: The scientific evidence for the existence of God is just too great for atheists to overcome.
GW: The evidence for the existence of God is equivocal and inconclusive. We atheists have overcome what little there is by valid arguments showing that God doesn’t exist, you know, like that argument you continue to evade.
RT: The fact that galaxies are distributed more densely–and quasars become abundant–the farther we look into space indicates that the universe has changed with time.
GW: So what? That is consistent with no God.
RT: These observations argue against any static or steady state, or eternal universe, theory, and for a creation event.
GW: They argue against any static or steady state universe, but not against an eternal universe. Haven’t you heard of the predicted result of the expansion? The universe will not go out of existence; it will just continue in a different state. Don’t forget that energy-matter can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed.
RT: The multiverse or alien creator(s) ideas purely speculative, with zero supporting evidence.
GW: Those two ideas have exactly the same evidence supporting them that you have for your hypothesis.
RT: Without an extremely hot, dense creation event, the large amount of helium in the universe today cannot be explained.
GW: You don’t know that there was a creation event. You are just making that up. Nobody knows that there was a creation event. But there was a small, hot, and dense primordial particle which expanded at a high rate about 13.75 billion years ago. That is a fact. If God did exist and the Bible were the word of God, then there would be a description of Big Bang cosmology in Genesis. But, of course, there isn’t.
GW: You keep evading the issues I bring up. Here is one I presented twice and you still haven’t addressed it: There are only seven possible good reasons to allow significant harm to others:
1. You lack knowledge of the probable harm.
2. You probably lack the power to prevent the harm.
3. You probably would be killed in an attempt to prevent the harm.
4. You probably would be significantly injured in an attempt to prevent the harm.
5. You probably would suffer significantly in an attempt to prevent the harm.
6. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to prevent a greater harm.
7. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to produce a greater compensating benefit.
But if God did exist, because of his nature he could and would not have any of these good reasons to allow the harm. Traits of his nature would include: all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, perfectly invincible, and perfectly rational. It would not be possible for God to have any of the seven possible good reasons or excuses to allow the harm. And so, he would necessarily prevent the harm, if he did exist.
GW: Furthermore, if God ever did have any good reasons to allow harm, he would declare these reasons to everybody, but especially to the victims and their families. No all-powerful and perfectly moral person is going to hide good reasons for allowing harm which he could have prevented!
Something cannot come from nothing! E=MC2 has been proven true. The “primordial particle” had to come from something. The energy that transformed into matter at the beginning of the universe had to come from something. Something, or someone, had to cause this magnificent transference. “Look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host . . . because because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing” (Isaiah 40:26 NIV).
RT: Something cannot come from nothing!
GW: Ok, I agree. This means that if God did exist, then he couldn’t and wouldn’t create something from nothing. Instead, he would create something from a part of himself. Agree?
RT: E=MC2 has been proven true.
GW: That is correct. Energy and matter can be transformed, one to the other.
RT: The “primordial particle” had to come from something.
GW: Ok, we agree on that point.
RT: The energy that transformed into matter at the beginning of the universe had to come from something.
GW: The transformation of energy to matter occurred long after the Big Bang. The rapid expansion of the energy in the primordial particle was the Big Bang.
RT: Something, or someone, had to cause this magnificent transference.
GW: Yes, if there was a cause. Another possibility is that it just occurred spontaneously with no cause. However, I tend to agree that there was probably a cause. However, I doubt that it was a someone, like a god or advanced alien. There is no good evidence for that. It was probably a natural force, field, process, or condition. We don’t yet know. We must be humble about this and not make declarations as though they are truths.
RT: “Look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host . . . because because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing” (Isaiah 40:26 NIV).
GW: Sure, the ancient authors believed in the existence of God, but we now know that God does not exist, as shown by many proofs.
GW: Why do you keep evading my questions and challenges? The existence of God hinges on a proper understanding of morality. Here is an issue I presented to you thrice and you still haven’t addressed it: There are only seven possible good reasons to allow significant harm to others:
1. You lack knowledge of the probable harm.
2. You probably lack the power to prevent the harm.
3. You probably would be killed in an attempt to prevent the harm.
4. You probably would be significantly injured in an attempt to prevent the harm.
5. You probably would suffer significantly in an attempt to prevent the harm.
6. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to prevent a greater harm.
7. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to produce a greater compensating benefit.
But if God did exist, because of his nature he could and would not have any of these good reasons to allow the harm. Traits of his nature would include: all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, perfectly invincible, and perfectly rational. It would not be possible for God to have any of the seven possible good reasons or excuses to allow the harm. And so, he would necessarily prevent the harm, if he did exist.
GW: Furthermore, if God ever did have any good reasons to allow harm, he would declare these reasons to everybody, but especially to the victims and their families. No all-powerful and perfectly moral person is going to hide good reasons for allowing harm which he could have prevented!
RT: “It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo–Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness” (Physicist Edmund Whittaker).
GW: Where is the citation and link for this quote?
GW: It is not simpler to postulate that idea than to postulate an eternal universe. Besides, you don’t even agree with the quote since you have agreed with me that something cannot come from nothing.
Let’s clarify some things. Science has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the universe had a beginning. Anything that begins to exist has a cause. Therefore, the universe had a cause. The initial energy that was used in the transference of energy into matter at the Big Bang did not come from anything in the universe. Therefore, it could accurately be said, in a sense, that the universe exploded into being from nothing. However, it is also absolutely true that something cannot come from nothing. The energy that transformed into matter at the beginning of the universe, the Big Bang, if you will, could only have come from something, or someone, outside the universe. The extremely high degree of complexity and organization this initial movement, and ever since, in the universe, proves that this First Cause had to be a super intelligent and super powerful person (Isaiah 40:26; Romans 1:20; Hebrews 3:4). You are not accurate, certainly not up to date, in your understanding of what occurred at the Big Bang. The Big Bang was the initial transference of energy into matter, that resulted in an instantaneous explosion of heat and light. The universe then expanded from the initial infinitesimally small point. Two thousand seven hundred years prior to humans even knowing of, and understanding, this expansion expansion of the universe, Isaiah 40:26 accurately referred to it. “God the LORD [Yahweh] . . . the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out” (NIV).
RT: Let’s clarify some things. Science has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the universe had a beginning.
GW: Our universe had a beginning of a new phase at the Big Bang, but there is no good evidence that it was the beginning of existence of the universe. The primordial particle was our universe 13.7 billion years ago.
RT: Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
GW: I tend to agree with that, but it is not certain. Radioactive decay may not have a cause.
RT: Therefore, the universe had a cause.
GW: Nobody knows that the universe had a beginning to its existence, let alone a cause. You are claiming to know things you don’t know. That is typical of faith.
RT: The initial energy that was used in the transference of energy into matter at the Big Bang did not come from anything in the universe.
GW: The transference you describe here never occurred. This quote refutes your claim: “In the first second after the big bang, our universe was an almost inconceivably hot and dense soup of primordial particles. Over the next three minutes, as the cosmos expanded and cooled, the nuclei of helium and other very light elements began to form. Fast-forward 400,000 years, and the universe was cold enough for the first atoms to appear.” The existence of matter requires the existence of atoms, and there were no atoms until 400K years after the Big Bang.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/jwsts-first-glimpses-of-early-galaxies-could-break-cosmology/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=today-in-science&utm_content=link&utm_term=2022-09-14_featured-this-week&spMailingID=72078126&spUserID=NTkxOTUyMTU4NjA5S0&spJobID=2254070123&spReportId=MjI1NDA3MDEyMwS2
RT: Therefore, it could accurately be said, in a sense, that the universe exploded into being from nothing.
GW: No, that would be inaccurate. There was no explosion, and the primordial particle was not nothing.
RT: However, it is also absolutely true that something cannot come from nothing.
GW: So, you have contradicted yourself.
RT: The energy that transformed into matter at the beginning of the universe, the Big Bang, if you will, could only have come from something, or someone, outside the universe.
GW: Or the energy always existed. Yes, that is more likely. There is no good evidence for the involvement of any god. If God did exist, he would have presented himself in many press conferences over the course of human history. This has not happened. Therefore, God does not exist.
RT: The extremely high degree of complexity and organization this initial movement, and ever since, in the universe, proves that this First Cause had to be a super intelligent and super powerful person (Isaiah 40:26; Romans 1:20; Hebrews 3:4).
GW: Expansion does not imply any person or intelligent agent.
RT: You are not accurate, certainly not up to date, in your understanding of what occurred at the Big Bang.
GW: There was no Big Bang at that time. My information is accurate and up to date.
RT: The Big Bang was the initial transference of energy into matter,…
GW: Already refuted by the quote from Scientific American. See above.
RT: that resulted in an instantaneous explosion of heat and light.
GW: There was no explosion. It was a rapid expansion.
RT: The universe then expanded from the initial infinitesimally small point.
GW: It wasn’t a point. It was a small, dense, and hot particle of energy.
RT: Two thousand seven hundred years prior to humans even knowing of, and understanding, this expansion expansion of the universe, Isaiah 40:26 accurately referred to it.
GW: No. The Big Bang and evolution too are not described in the Bible. And thus we know that the Bible could not be the word of God.
RT: “God the LORD [Yahweh] . . . the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out” (NIV).
GW: God does not exist, as proven by my argument which you continue to evade.
GW: You also continue to evade the issue I have brought up at least four times. Here it is again. The existence of God hinges on a proper understanding of morality. There are only seven possible good reasons to allow significant harm to others:
1. You lack knowledge of the probable harm.
2. You probably lack the power to prevent the harm.
3. You probably would be killed in an attempt to prevent the harm.
4. You probably would be significantly injured in an attempt to prevent the harm.
5. You probably would suffer significantly in an attempt to prevent the harm.
6. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to prevent a greater harm.
7. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to produce a greater compensating benefit.
But if God did exist, because of his nature he could and would not have any of these good reasons to allow the harm. Traits of his nature would include: all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, perfectly invincible, and perfectly rational. It would not be possible for God to have any of the seven possible good reasons or excuses to allow the harm. And so, he would necessarily prevent the harm, if he did exist. You have no adequate answer for this.
GW: Furthermore, if God ever did have any good reasons to allow harm, he would declare these reasons to everybody, but especially to the victims and their families. No all-powerful and perfectly moral person is going to hide good reasons for allowing harm which he could have prevented!
” . . . people who suppress the truth . . . They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God (Romans 1:20 NLT).
Satellite observations show that the opposite sides of our visible universe have the same cosmic background temperature, making it undeniable that these opposite, widely separated portions of the universe were once in contact. The Big Bang could not have been a random event explosion. All observations point to an incredibly finely-tuned, carefully orchestrated chain of events that could lead to the solar systems necessary for intelligent life. “The question of ‘the beginning’ is as inescapable for cosmologists as it is for theologians” (Wrinkles in Time, by George Smoot and Keay Davidson, p 189). “The essential element in the astronomical and the biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and heat” (God and the Astronomers, by Robert Jastrow, p 14).
RT: ” . . . people who suppress the truth . . . They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them.
GW: If God did exist and God made this obvious, then the total number of atheists in the world would be less than the current number of flat earthers. It hasn’t happened.
RT: For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God (Romans 1:20 NLT).
GW: God does not exist and so he made nothing. But if he did exist, he would be the creator of the universe, not from nothing, but from a piece of himself. There are many “excuses” for not believing in God, and I have mentioned two – 1) lack of sufficient good evidence, and 2) my argument in which you have found no errors.
GW: If you still believe that God exists, then invite him to a meeting of us and our friends. Since supposedly he likes you, then he should show up. But of course he won’t. Why? Because he doesn’t exist.
RT: Satellite observations show that the opposite sides of our visible universe have the same cosmic background temperature, making it undeniable that these opposite, widely separated portions of the universe were once in contact.
GW: Yes, I agree.
RT: The Big Bang could not have been a random event explosion.
GW: It wasn’t an explosion. It was an expansion. And it almost certainly wasn’t random. We both believe it had a cause. So why would you say it was random?
RT: All observations point to an incredibly finely-tuned, carefully orchestrated chain of events that could lead to the solar systems necessary for intelligent life.
GW: False. The observations only mean “If the ‘constants’ at the Big Bang had been different, then our universe would be different now.” Duh. “Fine tuning” and”orchestration” are just wild speculations for which there is no good evidence. If you disagree, then produce the fine tuner or the orchestrator.
RT: “The question of ‘the beginning’ is as inescapable for cosmologists as it is for theologians” (Wrinkles in Time, by George Smoot and Keay Davidson, p 189).
GW: There is nothing wrong with asking a relevant question. Did the universe begin to exist? Perfectly relevant question. And the correct answer is “We don’t know, but probably not.”
RT: “The essential element in the astronomical and the biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and heat” (God and the Astronomers, by Robert Jastrow, p 14).
GW: Where does it say in Genesis that God created the universe “in a flash of light and heat”? I think Jastrow was mistaken.
GW: You continue to evade the issue I have brought up at least 5X. Here it is again. The existence of God hinges on a proper understanding of morality. There are only seven possible good reasons to allow significant harm to others:
1. You lack knowledge of the probable harm.
2. You probably lack the power to prevent the harm.
3. You probably would be killed in an attempt to prevent the harm.
4. You probably would be significantly injured in an attempt to prevent the harm.
5. You probably would suffer significantly in an attempt to prevent the harm.
6. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to prevent a greater harm.
7. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to produce a greater compensating benefit.
But if God did exist, because of his nature he could and would not have any of these good reasons to allow the harm. Traits of his nature would include: all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, perfectly invincible, and perfectly rational. It would not be possible for God to have any of the seven possible good reasons or excuses to allow the harm. And so, he would necessarily prevent the harm, if he did exist. You have no adequate answer for this.
GW: Furthermore, if God ever did have any good reasons to allow harm, he would declare these reasons to everybody, but especially to the victims and their families. No all-powerful and perfectly moral person is going to hide good reasons for allowing harm which he could have prevented!
One reason that God has temporarily tolerated evil, etc., is because it has proven the truth of Jeremiah 10:23, “LORD [Yahweh], I know that people’s lives are not their own; it is not for them to direct their steps” (NLT), that is, humans are incapable of ruling themselves. Your lack of understanding, and impatience, doesn’t change the reality. God’s question to Job applies also to you: “Who is this that questions my wisdom with such ignorant words?” (Job 38:2 NLT). What God will do, and the way he will resolve all problems will be so good, that it is said to be beyond human comprehension. As 1 Corinthians 2:9,10 says: “As it is written: ‘What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived’–the things God has prepared for those who love him–these are the things god has revealed to us by his Spirit” (NIV).
RT: One reason that God has temporarily tolerated evil, etc., is because it has proven the truth of Jeremiah 10:23, “LORD [Yahweh], I know that people’s lives are not their own; it is not for them to direct their steps” (NLT), that is, humans are incapable of ruling themselves.
GW: I rarely use the concept of “evil.” It has religious overtones or connotations and its meaning is somewhat ambiguous. You will notice that I did not use it in my argument. The concept of “harm” is much better, and so I will talk about it in this context. The Covid pandemic is a severe harm which was caused by natural processes. That is the focus of my argument.
GW: I strongly disagree with your and Jeremiah’s claim. It think your claim is preposterous, and I will tell you why. If God did exist, he would not “tolerate” severe harms in our world. He would PREVENT them! Why? Because that is what any all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly rational, and perfectly moral intelligent agent would do! To allow severe harms to occur when you could prevent them would be immoral, and God would not be immoral, but instead would be perfectly moral. However, your own god, which I have sometimes called “Tuckergod,” is apparently amoral or immoral. Which is it?
GW: There is another problem with the verse. Humans are at least partly capable of ruling themselves. They do partly rule themselves. This is a fact.
RT: Your lack of understanding, and impatience, doesn’t change the reality.
GW: I strongly disagree with you. My understanding of religious, philosophical, and psychological matters is outstanding! Just because I disagree with you doesn’t indicate I lack understanding. That is a mistaken inference on your part. Patience is irrelevant to the issue we are discussing because if God did exist, it would not be necessary for any of us to wait patiently on him to do the moral thing, such as the prevention of severe harm. He would have done that from the beginning of the world. It is sometimes necessary to be patient with other human beings because they are fallible, as I am patient with you. However, this would not be the case with God since he would be infallible. If you disagree with any of this, then present your case.
RT: God’s question to Job applies also to you: “Who is this that questions my wisdom with such ignorant words?” (Job 38:2 NLT).
GW: The author of the book of Job assumed that God exists without sufficient reason, just like you, but we now know that God does not exist. But if I were in Job’s situation, I would respond “It is I, Gary Whittenberger, one very curious and assertive human person on this Earth. I will ask you many questions to see if you are as wise as you claim to be.” Please note that in the story, God never does answer Job’s question which was basically “Why are you allowing these severe harms to happen to me?” If God did exist and he had any good reasons for allowing those harms, he would have told Job what his good reasons were! That is what a perfectly moral person would do. I fear that you really don’t grasp the concept of “God.”
GW: Also in the story of Job, God allows the severe harms to occur to Job as a part of a bet with Satan. We know that if God did exist, he would never participate with Satan in such a test and would never allow Satan to cause the harms to Job. That would be immoral, and if God did exist, God would be perfectly moral.
RT: What God will do, and the way he will resolve all problems will be so good, that it is said to be beyond human comprehension.
GW: Nonsense! If God did exist, he wouldn’t resolve all problems sometime in the future, but he would have PREVENTED significant harms to human persons. And so, we know that the Covid pandemic, bone cancer in children, men raping women, and the Holocaust would NEVER HAVE OCCURRED, if God did exist! The problem here is that you do not understand morality. That is why I have been trying to get you to discuss it with me, but you just keep evading it. For once, just set aside your Bible and discuss with me the basics of morality, relying on your common sense.
RT: As 1 Corinthians 2:9,10 says: “As it is written: ‘What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived’–the things God has prepared for those who love him–these are the things god has revealed to us by his Spirit” (NIV).
GW: This is just more nonsense! It cannot possibly be true. If God did exist, he would present himself, his rules for living, and the “things he has prepared” for those who comply with his rules for living and those who do not. As I have said many times, God would not be shy, reticent, hiding, or deceptive. He would be forthcoming, assertive, truthful, and helpful. He would make grand revelations of all these things in a current, clear, unequivocal, universal, and objective way.
GW: You continue to evade the issue I have brought up at least 6X. Here it is again. The existence of God hinges on a proper understanding of morality. There are only seven possible good reasons to allow significant harm to others:
1. You lack knowledge of the probable harm.
2. You probably lack the power to prevent the harm.
3. You probably would be killed in an attempt to prevent the harm.
4. You probably would be significantly injured in an attempt to prevent the harm.
5. You probably would suffer significantly in an attempt to prevent the harm.
6. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to prevent a greater harm.
7. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to produce a greater compensating benefit.
But if God did exist, because of his nature he could and would not have any of these good reasons to allow the harm! Traits of his nature would include: all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, perfectly invincible, and perfectly rational. It would not be possible for God to have any of the seven possible good reasons or excuses to allow the harm. And so, he would necessarily prevent the harm, if he did exist. You have no adequate answer for this.
GW: Furthermore, if God ever did have any good reasons to allow harm, he would declare these reasons to everybody, but especially to the victims and their families. No all-powerful and perfectly moral person is going to hide good reasons for allowing harm which he could have prevented! Duh. This is obvious.
Baseball bats, pipes, drugs administered in hospitals, airplanes, etc., have been used to murder people, but does that mean that no one made them? Your line of reasoning is similar regarding the existence of suffering in the world. You assert the existence of suffering in the world means there is no God. God created humans with the ability to make choices (Genesis 2:15-17). They willfully made the wrong, or bad, choice (Genesis 3:6), misusing free will, but that doesn’t mean there is no God. The principle at Ecclesiastes 7:29 proved true: “God created mankind upright, but they have gone in search of many schemes” (NIV). We inherited sin from them (Romans 5:12). You deny the existence of a major factor in all of this, “the devil . . . He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44 NIV). He, and other, once perfect angels, misused their free will to turn bad (Jude 6), but that doesn’t mean there is no Creator. Satan has deceived many into thinking that he doesn’t exist, and an increasing number, such as yourself, to believe that God doesn’t exist (1 Peter 5:8; Revelation 20:10). Just as humans do not fully understand everything about how the universe was formed and works, but that doesn’t mean the universe doesn’t exist, humans do not fully understand everything about how God operates, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist (Isaiah 55:8,9).
RT: Baseball bats, pipes, drugs administered in hospitals, airplanes, etc., have been used to murder people, but does that mean that no one made them?
GW: We know that one or more persons made them! We have sufficient evidence to support this conclusion. On the other hand, we do not know that one or more persons made suns, solar systems, universes, the first organism on Earth, current organisms of any species, etc. Why? Because we don’t have sufficient evidence to support the conclusion.
RT: Your line of reasoning is similar regarding the existence of suffering in the world.
GW: Not even close. Suffering is a natural and frequent reaction of persons to harm. Suffering is a product of evolution in living things, especially mammals.
RT: You assert the existence of suffering in the world means there is no God.
GW: That’s not quite accurate. My argument shows how the existence of the Covid pandemic is logically incompatible with the existence of God. However, you may select any moderate to severe harm and substitute it for the pandemic and the argument is still valid. You need to understand why this is the case.
RT: God created humans with the ability to make choices (Genesis 2:15-17).
GW: God does not exist and so he did not create anything. At most he is a hypothetical person, but now we know that this hypothetical person does not exist. But of course, humans make choices!
RT: They willfully made the wrong, or bad, choice (Genesis 3:6), misusing free will, but that doesn’t mean there is no God.
GW: In the fictional story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, did these two “first humans” make the wrong choice? It depends on how you understand the story. On the one hand, some people (apparently the Genesis author and you) believe they made the wrong choice because they disobeyed a command of the hypothetical God. But on the other hand, some people (like me) believe they made the right choice because not only did they defy an unethical command, they also chose knowledge over ignorance.
GW: As I have told you before, the existence of “free will” is a very controversial topic in psychology and philosophy. We do know that the will is not entirely free. It is influenced greatly by the genetics, environment, and upbringing of people. But is it totally dependent on prior factors? How much does chance or randomness play in our will? We don’t know the answers to these questions yet. Most of the Bible authors and you assume the doctrine of “free will,” but it might not be correct.
GW: However, if God did exist, he would not have given humans the “free will” to choose certain actions. The example I use is rape. God would never have given men the free will to choose to rape women. Why? Because to do so would be ENABLING or FACILITATING an immoral act, and this would make God partly responsible for every rape. But that would contradict the nature of God who would be perfectly moral. Your god, Tuckergod, might give men the free will to rape women, but God would never do that.
RT: The principle at Ecclesiastes 7:29 proved true: “God created mankind upright, but they have gone in search of many schemes” (NIV).
GW: This verse is false in two ways. First, God does not exist. We now know this. Secondly, humans are not “upright” by nature. They have the capacities and the tendencies to do good and bad.
RT: We inherited sin from them (Romans 5:12).
GW: From whom? Adam and Eve? Pure nonsense! Sin is the alleged disobedience of a command of the alleged God. Sin is a behavior. Sin is not inherited. Babies do not sin as soon as they emerge from the womb.
RT: You deny the existence of a major factor in all of this, “the devil . . . He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44 NIV).
GW: The devil doesn’t exist, so there is no fact there to deny. I disagree with your claim that the devil exists. If God did exist, the devil would not exist. But why? Because God would never have created an angel who would “fall” and become the “murderer,” “liar,” and tormentor with respect to humans. Once again, God would PREVENT moderate to severe harms, not cause, allow, or authorize them. God would be a good guy, not a bad guy.
GW: But also, the existence of the devil depends on the existence of God. Because God does not exist, the devil does not exist. So either way — either if God did exist or did not, the devil would not.
RT: He, and other, once perfect angels, misused their free will to turn bad (Jude 6), but that doesn’t mean there is no Creator.
GW: See above for the reasons that the devil and other bad acting angels do not exist.
RT: Satan has deceived many into thinking that he doesn’t exist, and an increasing number, such as yourself, to believe that God doesn’t exist (1 Peter 5:8; Revelation 20:10).
GW: We now know that neither God nor Satan exists. Satan doesn’t deceive anybody. He doesn’t do anything. Why? Because he doesn’t exist! If he did exist, maybe he would deceive you into thinking that God exists. That way he would build up your hopes just to dash them. What a sly and malicious person he would be, if he existed.
RT: Just as humans do not fully understand everything about how the universe was formed and works, but that doesn’t mean the universe doesn’t exist, humans do not fully understand everything about how God operates, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist (Isaiah 55:8,9).
GW: Of course we humans do not fully understand everything about how the universe works, but we do now know that God neither never had nor currenly has anything to do with it. Why? Because we now know that God does not exist! How do we know this? Through reason, science, and logic. Look and understand the many proofs of this, including my own argument. I do give you a little credit for trying a little to find an error in the argument, but you have yet to find one.
GW: You continue to evade the issue I have brought up at least 7X. Here it is again: The existence of God hinges on a proper understanding of morality. There are only seven possible good reasons to allow significant harm to others:
1. You lack knowledge of the probable harm.
2. You probably lack the power to prevent the harm.
3. You probably would be killed in an attempt to prevent the harm.
4. You probably would be significantly injured in an attempt to prevent the harm.
5. You probably would suffer significantly in an attempt to prevent the harm.
6. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to prevent a greater harm.
7. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to produce a greater compensating benefit.
But if God did exist, because of his nature he could and would not have any of these good reasons to allow the harm! Traits of his nature would include: all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, perfectly invincible, and perfectly rational. It would not be possible for God to have any of the seven possible good reasons or excuses to allow the harm. And so, he would necessarily prevent the harm, if he did exist. You have no adequate answer for this. In fact, no apologist for religion in the history of humankind has ever had an adequate answer for this.
GW: Furthermore, if God ever did have any good reasons to allow significant harm, he would declare these reasons to everybody, but especially to the victims and their families. No all-powerful and perfectly moral person is going to hide good reasons for allowing harm which he could have prevented! Duh. This is obvious.
If humans did not have a choice as to whether to sin or not, why do governments have and enforce laws against criminal behavior? It is widely recognized that humans do have choices as to whether to act properly or not, that is why criminals are held accountable (Romans 13:1-7).
Also, it is widely recognized that complex structures and systems do not come about except by design (Hebrews 3:4). No one in their right mind denies that designers and builders don’t exist simply because it isn’t known who these individuals are.
The universe and the earth, etc., give abundant evidence of a super-powerful designer (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 3:4; Hebrews 11:3).
RT: If humans did not have a choice as to whether to sin or not, why do governments have and enforce laws against criminal behavior?
GW: I never said that humans do not make choices. Because God does not exist, sin, which is disobedience to his hypothetical commands, does not exist either. However, governments punish people to reduce the frequency and probability that they will commit crimes in the future.
GW: The controversial issue that I mentioned has nothing to do with the fact that humans make choices; they do. It has to do with whether the choices are free, determined, or by chance.
RT: It is widely recognized that humans do have choices as to whether to act properly or not, that is why criminals are held accountable (Romans 13:1-7).
GW: I agree that humans make these choices. However, as I said above, governments enforce laws to lower the probability that humans will make poor choices.
RT: Also, it is widely recognized that complex structures and systems do not come about except by design (Hebrews 3:4).
GW: Why do you continue to make false statements like this? We’ve been over this many times. We know that SOME complex structures and systems are designed and produced by human beings. We do not know that SOME OTHER complex structures and systems, like solar systems, are produced by intelligent agents. We know that SOME OTHER complex structures and systems, like animals, are produced by evolution and NOT by intelligent agents.
RT: No one in their right mind denies that designers and builders don’t exist simply because it isn’t known who these individuals are.
GW: No one in their right mind claims that ALL complex structures and systems were designed and produced by some intelligent agent. The evidence does not support this claim.
GW: We believe with good reason that a human being invented the wheel, but we don’t know who this human was.
RT: The universe and the earth, etc., give abundant evidence of a super-powerful designer (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 3:4; Hebrews 11:3).
GW: Why do you continue to make false statements like this? We’ve been over this many times. Consider this again: This is your argument by analogy.
1. Intelligent agents, i.e. human persons, construct buildings and machines which are orderly and complex.
2. There are orderly and complex objects in the universe which surely must have been constructed by one or more intelligent agents similar to human persons.
3. The intelligent agent constructing these objects must have been God.
Premise #1 is true. Premise #2 is false or unproven. And the conclusion at #3 is also false or unproven. There is no good evidence in support of #2. But even if #2 were true, the responsible intelligent agent could be an advanced alien or a god besides God.
GW: You continue to evade the issue I have brought up at least 8X now. Here it is again: The existence of God hinges on a proper understanding of morality. There are only seven possible good reasons to allow significant harm to others:
1. You lack knowledge of the probable harm.
2. You probably lack the power to prevent the harm.
3. You probably would be killed in an attempt to prevent the harm.
4. You probably would be significantly injured in an attempt to prevent the harm.
5. You probably would suffer significantly in an attempt to prevent the harm.
6. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to prevent a greater harm.
7. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to produce a greater compensating benefit.
But if God did exist, because of his nature he could and would not have any of these good reasons to allow the harm! Traits of his nature would include: all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, perfectly invincible, and perfectly rational. It would not be possible for God to have any of the seven possible good reasons or excuses to allow the harm. And so, he would necessarily prevent the harm, if he did exist. You have no adequate answer for this. In fact, no apologist for religion in the history of humankind has ever had an adequate answer for this.
GW: Furthermore, if God ever did have any good reasons to allow significant harm, he would declare these reasons to everybody, but especially to the victims and their families. No all-powerful and perfectly moral person is going to hide good reasons for allowing harm which he could have prevented! Duh. This is obvious.
God lovingly and wisely created intelligent creatures with free will, but warned of the consequences of rebellion against his established laws (Genesis 2:15-17; Deuteronomy 30:19,20; Joshua 24:15). The first humans chose to rebel, under the influence of Satan, and all their descendants inherited sin, and all its deleterious effects (Genesis 3:6; Romans 5:12). Thankfully, God did not create robots, and did not immediately execute rebellious humans, which he had both the power, and every right, to do so. But might does not make, or prove, right. God allowed sufficient time for it to be demonstrated whether the challenges raised in the garden of Eden about his sovereignty, and also about human integrity, as challenged in Job’s case (Job 1:6-22; 2:1-10), to be settled once and for all. While this seems like a very long time from the perspective of humans, it isn’t in the entire scheme of things. “A thousand years in your sight are . . . like a watch in the night” (Psalm 90:4 NIV). “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:8 NIV). God has everything under control. “Who is like you LORD God Almighty?” (Psalm 89:7 NIV). “I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:2 NIV). His timing of events is beyond our ability to figure out in advance. However, he has told us what he is going to do, and that is to make everything right, and undo all the problems. “Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7 NIV).
Your continuing to remain in denial of, and belief in, God is your choice. He’s offered you eternal life. Refusal results in eternal death. “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:18 NIV).
RT: God lovingly and wisely created intelligent creatures with free will, but warned of the consequences of rebellion against his established laws (Genesis 2:15-17; Deuteronomy 30:19,20; Joshua 24:15).
GW: I have refuted these ideas many times. God does not exist, and this has been proven. You have found no error in my own argument. The issue of free will is controversial and unresolved, as I have repeatedly explained to you. There is no good evidence that God declared any laws to obey, but if he existed, he would have done so in universal meetings with the press and ordinary people in grand revelations, as I have explained to you.
RT: The first humans chose to rebel, under the influence of Satan, and all their descendants inherited sin, and all its deleterious effects (Genesis 3:6; Romans 5:12).
GW: We have no knowledge of the specific first humans. The story of Adam and Eve is fictional. If God did exist, Satan would not exist even for a moment. God would not have created him! There is no good evidence for the existence of either God or Satan. Sin is a behavior (disobedience) and cannot be inherited.
RT: Thankfully, God did not create robots, and did not immediately execute rebellious humans, which he had both the power, and every right, to do so.
GW: If God did exist, he would have created humans as partial robots. For example, he would not have given men free will to rape women or for Germans to exterminate Jews. If God did create humans, then he would not have any right to execute them on a whim. He would have bound himself to Correct Universal Ethics, as he would have bound every other person. Just as no president or king is above the law, no god is above correct morality.
RT: But might does not make, or prove, right.
GW: I totally agree with that point. If God did exist, we should not obey him because he would be all-powerful, but obey him only if his commands are morally correct. For example, the OT god’s (not actually God’s) command to Abraham to sacrifice his own son was an immoral command. The OT god was asking Abraham to commit child abuse, and Abraham should have immediately disobeyed. The story by itself refutes the idea that the Bible is the infallible word of God.
RT: God allowed sufficient time for it to be demonstrated whether the challenges raised in the garden of Eden about his sovereignty, and also about human integrity, as challenged in Job’s case (Job 1:6-22; 2:1-10), to be settled once and for all.
GW: What does that even mean? The OT god gave Adam and Eve an immoral command and then he punished them immorally – punishing them not only too harshly but across generations. God would not have done that.
RT: While this seems like a very long time from the perspective of humans, it isn’t in the entire scheme of things. “A thousand years in your sight are . . . like a watch in the night” (Psalm 90:4 NIV).
GW: Why should we care about the way God would view time? If he existed, he would behave morally all the time, even from our perspective.
RT: “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:8 NIV).
GW: This is just nonsense. If God did exist and he did not want anyone to perish, he would know exactly how to fulfill his want efficiently and effectively. He would reveal himself, his rules for living, and the consequences of compliance and noncompliance in grand revelations, as I have described to you. This has never happened. Therefore, God does not exist.
RT: God has everything under control.
GW: Because God does not exist, he has nothing under control. You can’t even find an error in my argument presented to you, let alone the dozens of others available to you.
RT: “Who is like you LORD God Almighty?” (Psalm 89:7 NIV).
GW: If God did exist, he would be unique. See definition in Step #1.
RT: “I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:2 NIV).
GW: If God did exist, he would be all-powerful. See definition in Step #1.
RT: His timing of events is beyond our ability to figure out in advance.
GW: Nonsense. If God did exist, he would be perfectly moral all the time. See definition in Step #1.
RT: However, he has told us what he is going to do, and that is to make everything right, and undo all the problems.
GW: If God did exist, he would PREVENT moderate to severe harms NOW, not compensate for those harms in the future. You just don’t have a good grasp of the concept of God.
RT: “Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7 NIV).
GW: If God did exist, he would have already revealed himself in the manner I described. But this hasn’t happened. Therefore, God does not exist. Don’t make God out to be like your own two-bit, minor league god – Tuckergod.
RT: Your continuing to remain in denial of, and belief in, God is your choice.
GW: I choose to embrace the conclusions drawn from observation, reason, science, and logic. One of them is the conclusion of my argument which you continue to ignore. So far, you have found no error in it.
RT: He’s offered you eternal life. Refusal results in eternal death.
GW: Sorry to burst your little bubble, but eternal death is the end for all of us, despite your wishes.
RT: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:18 NIV).
GW: God does not exist, and this has been proven. I believe that Jesus existed. He was a traveling preacher in the first century CE. He had a few good ideas, but most of them were false, probably false, or irrational. There are still human persons alive today who wrongly claim to be the messengers of God.
GW: You continue to evade the issue I have brought up at least 9X now. Here it is again: The existence of God hinges on a proper understanding of morality. There are only seven possible good reasons to allow significant harm to others:
1. You lack knowledge of the probable harm.
2. You probably lack the power to prevent the harm.
3. You probably would be killed in an attempt to prevent the harm.
4. You probably would be significantly injured in an attempt to prevent the harm.
5. You probably would suffer significantly in an attempt to prevent the harm.
6. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to prevent a greater harm.
7. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to produce a greater compensating benefit.
But if God did exist, because of his nature he could and would not have any of these good reasons to allow the harm! Traits of his nature would include: all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, perfectly invincible, and perfectly rational. It would not be possible for God to have any of the seven possible good reasons or excuses to allow the harm. And so, he would necessarily prevent the harm, if he did exist. You have no adequate answer for this. In fact, no apologist for religion in the history of humankind has ever had an adequate answer for this.
GW: Furthermore, if God ever did have any good reasons to allow significant harm, he would declare these reasons to everybody, but especially to the victims and their families. No all-powerful and perfectly moral person is going to hide good reasons for allowing harm which he could have prevented! Duh. This is obvious.
No one, including you, has ever disproved God’s existence, and it’s certainly not for lack of trying. The existence of natural laws (electromagnetism, gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, etc.) and moral laws (against murder, theft, rape, extortion, etc.) provide more than adequate proof of God’s existence. “Your laws endure to this day, for all things serve you (Psalm 119:91 NIV).
RT: No one, including you, has ever disproved God’s existence,
GW: False. I have presented to you more than one disproof of God’s existence several times. For example, in my argument regarding Covid and God, the definitions are sound, the premises are true, and the logic is valid per Modus Tolens, and therefore the conclusion must be true. This is what a proof is. And neither you nor anyone else has found an error in it. If you find an error, then I will have to change my mind, but I don’t expect that you will find an error. Mostly you have not tried, but just evaded. But when you have tried, you have failed to find an error.
RT: and it’s certainly not for lack of trying.
GW: Many persons have tried and succeeded in proving that God does not exist. I am not the only one. Just read some of the work of James Sterba, Victor Stenger, and Richard Dawkins.
RT: The existence of natural laws (electromagnetism, gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, etc.) and moral laws (against murder, theft, rape, extortion, etc.) provide more than adequate proof of God’s existence.
GW: False. Orderliness or regularity in structure and processes are very likely eternal and intrinsic to the universe, and they are described well by “natural laws.” There is no good evidence that the orderliness was produced, created, or installed by God. A creator is not even required.
GW: Any moral god which did exist would establish and promote some moral code. But it is clear from what we see in our world that if a god were in charge of it, then he would be behaving IMMORALLY. Thus, any god in charge cannot be God because he would be perfectly moral, not immoral or amoral.
GW: Because God would be perfectly moral, he would conform to this moral rule of prevention: “Person X should attempt to prevent any moderate to severe harm H1 to any person Y or group of persons Z, if and only if 1) X certainly or probably knows about the opportunity to help by prevention, 2) X is certainly or probably able to prevent the harm, 3) X will certainly or probably not die in the prevention attempt, 4) X will certainly or probably not be permanently injured in the prevention attempt, 5) X will certainly or probably not suffer greatly in the prevention attempt, 6) allowing H1 is probably or certainly not necessary to preventing greater harm H2, and 7) allowing H1 is probably or certainly not necessary to producing a benefit B which outweighs the harm H1.” It is obvious that any person in charge of our world has not followed this moral rule. If God were in charge, then he would follow it. Therefore, God does not exist.
RT: “Your laws endure to this day, for all things serve you (Psalm 119:91 NIV).
GW: The verse is clearly false because all human persons do not “serve” God in our world, if he did exist. The verse can be used in an argument against the existence of God.
GW: You continue to evade the issue I have brought up at least 10X now. Here it is again: The existence of God hinges on a proper understanding of morality. There are only seven possible good reasons to allow significant harm to others:
1. You lack knowledge of the probable harm.
2. You probably lack the power to prevent the harm.
3. You probably would be killed in an attempt to prevent the harm.
4. You probably would be significantly injured in an attempt to prevent the harm.
5. You probably would suffer significantly in an attempt to prevent the harm.
6. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to prevent a greater harm.
7. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to produce a greater compensating benefit.
But if God did exist, because of his nature he could and would not have any of these good reasons to allow the harm! Traits of his nature would include: all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, perfectly invincible, and perfectly rational. It would not be possible for God to have any of the seven possible good reasons or excuses to allow the harm. And so, he would necessarily prevent the harm, if he did exist. You have no adequate answer for this. In fact, no apologist for religion in the history of humankind has ever had an adequate answer for this.
GW: Furthermore, if God ever did have any good reasons to allow significant harm, he would declare these reasons to everybody, but especially to the victims and their families. No all-powerful and perfectly moral person is going to hide good reasons for allowing harm which he could have prevented! Duh. This is obvious.
“In spite of his wonders, they did not believe” (Psalm 78:32 NIV).
Your unbelief, or denial, is nothing new. No sane person would argue that an automobile engine that he found has existed for eternity, nor that it could be chance-assembled by purely natural processes. While no mechanical engine is an organism, all organisms are engines. How so? An engine is any system which is capable of processing energy to perform work. All organisms do this, and a whole lot more! Just as a mechanical engine has not existed for eternity, nor has been assembled by purely natural processes, it is far more ludicrous to claim that strictly natural processes could assemble living organisms. And yet, this is exactly what atheists do, they “deny the truth” (James 3:14 NIV)! Just as laws have not existed forever, nor do laws simply “describe how things work”, as atheists like to claim, laws are made and established by lawmakers, and the great “lawgiver” established “the laws of the universe” (Isaiah 33:22; Job 38:33 NLT). “What may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:19,20 NIV). He has also explained why he tolerates bad things temporarily (Exodus 9:15,15; 2 Peter 3:8,9).
RT: “In spite of his wonders, they did not believe” (Psalm 78:32 NIV).
GW: Whose wonders? God’s wonders? We now know that God does not exist, regardless of the beliefs of the ancient Bible writers.
RT: Your unbelief, or denial, is nothing new.
GW: There is no fact of God’s existence to deny or embrace. God just doesn’t exist, and this has been proven many times throughout human history, but especially in modern times.
RT: No sane person would argue that an automobile engine that he found has existed for eternity, nor that it could be chance-assembled by purely natural processes.
GW: No educated person would argue those points. We know that automobile engines are designed and produced by human persons.
RT: While no mechanical engine is an organism, all organisms are engines. How so? An engine is any system which is capable of processing energy to perform work. All organisms do this, and a whole lot more!
GW: Organisms do convert some raw materials into energy or structures, but I don’t know they warrant the label “engines.”
RT: Just as a mechanical engine has not existed for eternity, nor has been assembled by purely natural processes, it is far more ludicrous to claim that strictly natural processes could assemble living organisms.
GW: Why do you believe it is ludicrous? You are a living organism and you weren’t assembled by another person. You were assembled by natural processes.
RT: And yet, this is exactly what atheists do, they “deny the truth” (James 3:14 NIV)!
GW: Atheists don’t deny truths. They just don’t have any beliefs in any gods.
RT: Just as laws have not existed forever, nor do laws simply “describe how things work”, as atheists like to claim, laws are made and established by lawmakers, and the great “lawgiver” established “the laws of the universe” (Isaiah 33:22; Job 38:33 NLT).
GW: We’ve been over this issue many times, and you still don’t seem to get it. There are two types of laws. There are natural laws or physical laws which describe the orderliness in reality, the universe, or nature. And then there are legislated laws which are prescriptions or prohibitions of behavior for human beings. They are established by legislators. You keep confusing the two types of laws.
RT: “What may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:19,20 NIV).
GW: It is plain to all rational thinkers that God does not exist. You are at a disadvantage because you are using a collection of books, i.e. the Bible, written by ancient men roughly two thousand years ago. They did not have reason, science, and logic in the forms we have today. Using advanced tools we have discovered new things, e.g. that God does not exist. Since the earliest time of theists, there were always atheists. However, now we have the advantage of proving that God does not exist.
RT: He has also explained why he tolerates bad things temporarily (Exodus 9:15,15; 2 Peter 3:8,9).
GW: No, the authors of those verses have explained why they believe God temporarily tolerates bad things. But these authors were just mistaken. We now know that if God did exist, he would PREVENT, not temporarily tolerate, moderate to severe harms in our world. But this hasn’t happened. And this is how we know that God does not exist. For one example, if God did exist, he would PREVENT bone cancer in children. But we have it anyway. Therefore, God does not exist. Isn’t it obvious? It is to me.
GW: You continue to evade the issue I have brought up at least 11X now. Here it is again: The existence of God hinges on a proper understanding of morality. There are only seven possible good reasons to allow significant harm to others:
1. You lack knowledge of the probable harm.
2. You probably lack the power to prevent the harm.
3. You probably would be killed in an attempt to prevent the harm.
4. You probably would be significantly injured in an attempt to prevent the harm.
5. You probably would suffer significantly in an attempt to prevent the harm.
6. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to prevent a greater harm.
7. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to produce a greater compensating benefit.
But if God did exist, because of his nature he could and would not have any of these good reasons to allow the harm! Traits of his nature would include: all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, perfectly invincible, and perfectly rational. It would not be possible for God to have any of the seven possible good reasons or excuses to allow the harm. And so, he would necessarily prevent the harm, if he did exist. You have no adequate answer for this. In fact, no apologist for religion in the history of humankind has ever had an adequate answer for this.
GW: Furthermore, if God ever did have any good reasons to allow significant harm, he would declare these reasons to everybody, but especially to the victims and their families. No all-powerful and perfectly moral person is going to hide good reasons for allowing harm which he could have prevented! Duh. This is obvious.
“Sing praises to God . . . Father to the fatherless, defender of widows . . . God places the lonely in families; he sets the prisoners free and gives them joy. But he makes the rebellious live in a sun-scorched land” (Psalm 68:4-6 NLT).
God, the father of all marginalized and needy people, shows them compassion and protects their rights (Psalm 10:14,18; 69:33; 82:3).In time he will fulfill all these promises. “Sun-scorched land” represents alienation from God and separation from blessing, which is the place where atheists figuratively live. Atheism cannot solve any of the basics problems of humanity, but God can and will.
God’s temporary allowance of suffering and bad things does not prove that he doesn’t exist (Deuteronomy 32:4,5; Ecclesiastes 7:29). For example, if you have a child who has cancer, you may lovingly arrange for your child to temporally suffer so as to be operated on, undergo chemotherapy, and radiation, all for your child’s permanent good. Just because others may not understand why you would allow your child to suffer through such treatments does not mean you’re a bad father, or that you’re not your child’s father.
Images coming from the James Webb Space Telescope continue to provide evidence supporting the Big Bang, aka, the beginning of the universe (Genesis 1:1), to the chagrin of atheists. Science has also confirmed that: (1) something cannot come from nothing (Hebrews 3:4); (2) life only comes from life (Revelation 4:8,11); (3) laws can only come from lawgivers (Isaiah 33:22); (4) design can only come from designers.
Like an alcoholic in denial of his alcoholism, you’re in denial of all these facts.
RT: “Sing praises to God . . . Father to the fatherless, defender of widows . . . God places the lonely in families; he sets the prisoners free and gives them joy. But he makes the rebellious live in a sun-scorched land” (Psalm 68:4-6 NLT).
GW: If God did all those things, then surely he would prevent the Covid pandemic, men raping women, bone cancer in children, and the Holocaust. The occurrence of these four things shows that God does not exist.
GW: Your citation of Bible verses to support your position is totally inadequate. Why? The verses were either written by ancient men, God, or a combination of these. But the ancient men are dead and they cannot participate in this discussion. And so far, you have been unable to summon God to participate either. So, the Bible verses are worthless to our discussion. At least you can participate in this discussion, so you need to stand on your own. You serve as an advocate or representative for those dead men and for God.
RT: God, the father of all marginalized and needy people, shows them compassion and protects their rights (Psalm 10:14,18; 69:33; 82:3).
GW: This is clearly false. See the four examples I listed above where no god at all offered compassion, protection, or prevention. The author of Psalms is not here to defend his position, so you need to defend it.
RT: In time he will fulfill all these promises.
GW: The verse you presented is not a promise. It is a statement of fact about what is happening or has happened. You are confusing the past, the present, and the future.
RT: “Sun-scorched land” represents alienation from God and separation from blessing, which is the place where atheists figuratively live.
GW: I am an atheist and I don’t live in a sun-scorched land. My land is fine.
RT: Atheism cannot solve any of the basics problems of humanity, but God can and will.
GW: God hasn’t solved any of the basic problems of humanity. Look at the four I listed. To say he “will” is just an empty promise. Why? Because we already know that God does not exist.
RT: God’s temporary allowance of suffering and bad things does not prove that he doesn’t exist (Deuteronomy 32:4,5; Ecclesiastes 7:29).
GW: That is circular thinking and begging the question. If God did exist, then he would have prevented the Covid pandemic. But we have it anyway. Therefore, God does not exist. This applies to the other three examples I presented.
RT: For example, if you have a child who has cancer, you may lovingly arrange for your child to temporally suffer so as to be operated on, undergo chemotherapy, and radiation, all for your child’s permanent good.
GW: The child’s parents have a good reason to authorize medical procedures which cause suffering for their own child. What is the good reason? The authorization is NECESSARY to prevent greater harms to the child, e.g. progression of the cancer and death. But if God did exist, this good reason would not be available to him. Why? Because nothing is NECESSARY for God since he is all powerful. He could prevent or immediately remove the cancer from the child and there would be no necessary greater harm to follow.
RT: Just because others may not understand why you would allow your child to suffer through such treatments does not mean you’re a bad father, or that you’re not your child’s father.
GW: I understand the good reason, and most people do. See above. The occurrence of the Covid pandemic doesn’t mean that God exists and is a bad father. It just means that he doesn’t exist at all.
RT: Images coming from the James Webb Space Telescope continue to provide evidence supporting the Big Bang, aka, the beginning of the universe (Genesis 1:1), to the chagrin of atheists.
GW: False. The images confirm the Big Bang, but not your interpretation of it. It is likely that the Big Bang was a transition event in an eternal universe.
RT: Science has also confirmed that: (1) something cannot come from nothing (Hebrews 3:4);
GW: No verse quote here. Science hasn’t confirmed that, but you and I agree that it is probably true.
RT: (2) life only comes from life (Revelation 4:8,11);
GW: No verse quote here. Science hasn’t confirmed that, and you and I disagree on this point. Do you believe that God himself is “alive”? I don’t think he would be alive, even if he existed. To be alive is to be a biological organism.
RT: (3) laws can only come from lawgivers (Isaiah 33:22);
GW: No verse quote here. Don’t forget that there are two kinds of laws, and one doesn’t require a lawgiver.
RT: (4) design can only come from designers.
GW: I agree with that one, but it is a trivial statement since the two words have the same root.
RT: Like an alcoholic in denial of his alcoholism, you’re in denial of all these facts.
GW: I disagree with you on some of your speculations, but I agree with all the facts. You deny the fact that God does not exist!
GW: You continue to evade the issue I have brought up at least 12X now. Here it is again: The existence of God hinges on a proper understanding of morality. There are only seven possible good reasons to allow significant harm to others:
1. You lack knowledge of the probable harm.
2. You probably lack the power to prevent the harm.
3. You probably would be killed in an attempt to prevent the harm.
4. You probably would be significantly injured in an attempt to prevent the harm.
5. You probably would suffer significantly in an attempt to prevent the harm.
6. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to prevent a greater harm.
7. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to produce a greater compensating benefit.
But if God did exist, because of his nature he could and would not have any of these good reasons to allow the harm! Traits of his nature would include: all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, perfectly invincible, and perfectly rational. It would not be possible for God to have any of the seven possible good reasons or excuses to allow the harm. And so, he would necessarily prevent the harm, if he did exist. You have no adequate answer for this. In fact, no apologist for religion in the history of humankind has ever had an adequate answer for this.
GW: Furthermore, if God ever did have any good reasons to allow significant harm, he would declare these reasons to everybody, but especially to the victims and their families. No all-powerful and perfectly moral person is going to hide good reasons for allowing harm which he could have prevented! Duh. This is obvious.
This website, Bible Authenticity, is dedicated to the defense of the Bible as being authentic, and is a defender of its Almighty author (1 Peter 3:15; 2 Timothy 3:16,17). Many verses have already been quoted in many responses to you. We have also cited, but not quoted, many Bible verses to you, in support of the Bible and its Almighty author. You’re a very good reader, and you have a Bible, and you have access to many Bible translations via the internet, so if you’re genuinely interested engaging in viable discussions, you can look them up yourself.
“Everyone knows that God doesn’t sin, the Almighty can do no wrong. He repays people according to their deeds. He treats people as they deserve. Truly God will not do wrong. The Almighty will not twist justice. Did someone else put the world in his care?” (Job 34:10-13 NLT). God cannot do wrong, nor be unjust. God pays back all people according to their behavior. As the Creator, he’s answerable to no one. Unlike many humans, God doesn’t care how great a person may be, and he pays no more attention to the rich than the poor. He made them all” (Job 34:19 NLT). Impartiality flows from God’s justice (Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Galatians 2:6; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:3:25; 1 Peter 1:17). “God watches how people live; he sees everything they do. He brings the mighty to ruin without asking anyone, and he sets up others in their place” (Job 34:21,24 NLT). God knows everything without asking anyone, and he is the one who is ultimately in control. “They cause the poor to cry out, catching God’s attention. He hears the cries of the needy. But if he chooses to remain quiet, who can criticize him? When he hides his face, no one can find him, whether an individual or nation” (Job 34:28,29 NLT). Although God appears to ignore injustice and other problems, he does see them. God’s intervention may seem to be slow in coming, but he will rectify everything in accordance with his all-wise and powerful sovereign disposition of everything (2 Peter 3:8,9).
RT: “Everyone knows that God doesn’t sin, the Almighty can do no wrong. He repays people according to their deeds. He treats people as they deserve. Truly God will not do wrong. The Almighty will not twist justice. Did someone else put the world in his care?” (Job 34:10-13 NLT).
GW: If God did exist, he would do no wrong because he would be all-powerful, perfectly rational, and perfectly moral. This verse you presented is contradicted by other verses in the Bible which show how people can be forgiven and not get what they deserve. Since the Bible has contradictions, it cannot be the word of God.
RT: God cannot do wrong, nor be unjust.
GW: Yes, if God did exist, he could not do wrong or be unjust.
RT: God pays back all people according to their behavior.
GW: Not according to traditional Christian doctrine or the Bible. According to these sources, some people can evade payback (just punishment) by merely believing in the atonement of Jesus Christ.
RT: As the Creator, he’s answerable to no one.
GW: It depends on what you mean by “answerable.” If God did exist, he would not have a supervisor. However, if he did exist, he would be answerable to all other persons who asked him to appear, to justify his actions, or to intervene for a good purpose. For example, if God did exist and allowed the Covid pandemic, he would be answerable to all persons, especially the victims, to state his reasons for allowing the pandemic.
RT: Unlike many humans, God doesn’t care how great a person may be, and he pays no more attention to the rich than the poor. He made them all” (Job 34:19 NLT). Impartiality flows from God’s justice (Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Galatians 2:6; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:3:25; 1 Peter 1:17).
GW: Yes, if God did exist he would be impartial, objective, and fair to all persons. And I don’t care how great God would be because he would have moral obligations and would fulfill them.
RT: “God watches how people live; he sees everything they do. He brings the mighty to ruin without asking anyone, and he sets up others in their place” (Job 34:21,24 NLT).
GW: If God did exist, he would be omniscient and perfectly moral. He would not bring the mighty to ruin, if the mighty behaved morally. How God would punish is a whole separate topic, but I think you know my position on that.
RT: God knows everything without asking anyone, and he is the one who is ultimately in control.
GW: Those claims would be true, if God did exist. If God did exist and he was in control, then he wouldn’t have allowed the Covid pandemic to occur. So how do you justify that? You haven’t. You can’t.
RT: “They cause the poor to cry out, catching God’s attention. He hears the cries of the needy. But if he chooses to remain quiet, who can criticize him? When he hides his face, no one can find him, whether an individual or nation” (Job 34:28,29 NLT).
GW: God would not choose to remain quiet or to “hide his face.” As I have reminded you before, God would not be shy, coy, reticent, unassertive, deceptive, or hiding. He would be forthcoming.
RT: Although God appears to ignore injustice and other problems, he does see them.
GW: If God did exist, he would foresee the Covid pandemic, men raping women, bone cancer in children, and the Holocaust, and he would prevent them all. So far, you have provided no justification for these events, and neither has God. Therefore, God does not exist!
RT: God’s intervention may seem to be slow in coming, but he will rectify everything in accordance with his all-wise and powerful sovereign disposition of everything (2 Peter 3:8,9).
GW: You are trying to sell a fraudulent or unproven insurance policy. I’m not buying it, and nobody should.
GW: I couldn’t find one of your responses on the website which I was presented by email, so I will just respond to it here.
RT: This website, Bible Authenticity, is dedicated to the defense of the Bible as being authentic, and is a defender of its Almighty author (1 Peter 3:15; 2 Timothy 3:16,17).
GW: Whatever verses of the Bible you cite are translations and interpretations of old texts, and are not “authentic,” in the usual sense. None of the verses were authored by God since God does not exist. They were authored by ancient men who spoke about their own religious beliefs and sometimes made up stories to convey their points. These authors are not here to defend their positions, so you must try to advocate for them if you are going to quote or paraphrase for them.
RT: Many verses have already been quoted in many responses to you.
GW: That is irrelevant. When you quote a verse, you have a moral and intellectual obligation to cite the source – the book, the chapter, the verse, and the version or translation. We’ve been over this before, and for awhile you were doing well at this. Now, you have relapsed.
RT: We have also cited, but not quoted, many Bible verses to you, in support of the Bible and its Almighty author.
GW: When you do that, then you have a moral and intellectual obligation to present the exact quote you are using to support your point.
RT: You’re a very good reader, and you have a Bible, and you have access to many Bible translations via the internet, so if you wish to to engage in a viable discussion, you can look them up yourself.
GW: Irrelevant. You are just trying to evade your moral and intellectual obligations. If you wish to engage in a viable discussion, you can and should provide the evidence to back up your points. Don’t be lazy or irresponsible.
The Bible itself is composed of 66 individuals books, by about 40 different writers. Its author is Almighty God (2 Timothy 3:16). It has been verified by many proofs, such as by many ancient original language manuscripts, as being authentic. Of course, no modern-day English translation is presented as being authentic, in the sense of being an original language ancient manuscript. Bible quotes and citations on this website are always identified by the name of the book, chapter and verse. The translation quoted is always identified unless the rendering is identically the same in all the most common translations. You should be glad to check each verse cited, but not quoted, since you can easily do so. Your unwillingness to do this is a clue that you may not be genuinely interested in learning, but only want to argue to prove your point. That’s not the purpose of this website.
RT: The Bible itself is composed of 66 individuals books, by about 40 different writers.
GW: Yes, I know.
RT: Its author is Almighty God (2 Timothy 3:16).
GW: Nonsense. God doesn’t exist, and this has been proven, so we are left with human authors of the Bible. Also, the Bible is so chuck full of contradictions, inconsistencies, falsehoods, and immoral authorizations such that it could not be the word of God, even if God did exist. I’ll give you just one example. God would never have told Abraham to sacrifice his son. That would have been immoral just to give the command, and if he existed, instead of being immoral, God would be perfectly moral. This story alone is enough to falsify your hypothesis that God was the author of the Bible.
RT: It has been verified by many proofs, such as by many ancient original language manuscripts, as being authentic.
GW: Again, it depends on how you define “authentic.” The oldest manuscripts are very probably not the original manuscripts, and so we cannot really tell what is authentic or not, in one sense. Also, even if we had the original manuscripts, you and I could not read them. In addition, authenticity is no guarantee of truth. An authentic manuscript might claim that God exists, and it would be mistaken anyway.
RT: Of course, no modern-day English translation is presented as being authentic, in the sense of being an original language ancient manuscript.
GW: I agree. The oldest Bible manuscripts were written in Hebrew and Greek.
We are not experts in those languages.
RT: Bible quotes and citations on this website are always identified by the name of the book, chapter and verse.
GW: False. You sometimes leave them out.
RT: The translation quoted is always identified unless the rendering is identically the same in all the most common translations.
GW: False. Sometimes you leave out the translation or version, and you should never do that.
RT: You should be glad to check each verse cited, but not quoted, since you can easily do so.
GW: You should be glad to fulfill your moral and intellectual obligations.
RT: Your unwillingness to do this is a clue that you may not be genuinely interested in learning, but only want to argue to prove your point. That’s not the purpose of this website.
GW: Your unwillingness to fulfill your moral and intellectual obligations is “a clue that you may not be genuinely interested in learning, but only want to argue to prove your point” or that you are lazy or that you are irresponsible. My purpose on your website is to tell the truth and promote reason in the process.
GW: If you submitted your writing to a professional journal, the editors would not let you get away with inadequate quotation or citation. You should follow professional standards, and I will point it out when you don’t.
“Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the LORD [Yahweh] called out to him from heaven, ‘Abraham! Abraham!’ ‘Here I am,’ he replied. ‘Do not lay a hand on the boy,’ he said. ‘Do not do anything to him. Now In known that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son'” (Genesis 22:10-12 NIV).
“By faith Abraham, when God tested him . . . was about to sacrifice his one and only son . . . Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death” (Hebrews 11:17-19 NIV).
“Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness'” (James 2:21-23 NIV).
It was never God’s purpose for Abraham to kill his son, but only to test Abraham. Abraham’s and Isaac’s actions were a small-scale illustration of what God and his Son would do.
“God presented Christ as sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood” (Romans 3:25 NIV).
“God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son” (John 3:16 NIV).
“Jesus Christ laid down his life for us” (1 John 3:16 NIV).
No other ancient writings have better authenticity than the Bible does. The Bible is in a class of its own regarding the number of ancient manuscripts, and the proximity of them to the original time of composition, archaeological evidence, quotes from other ancient writers, and accurate fulfillment of prophecy.
RT: “Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the LORD [Yahweh] called out to him from heaven, ‘Abraham! Abraham!’ ‘Here I am,’ he replied. ‘Do not lay a hand on the boy,’ he said. ‘Do not do anything to him. Now In known that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son’” (Genesis 22:10-12 NIV).
GW: If God did exist, he would not have given the initial order to Abraham to sacrifice his son. That would be immoral, and if God did exist, he would be perfectly moral.
RT: “By faith Abraham, when God tested him . . . was about to sacrifice his one and only son . . . Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death” (Hebrews 11:17-19 NIV).
GW: You are still missing the point. If God did exist, he would not give an immoral command, as is described in this story. So, we know that the Bible cannot be the word of God. This is obvious.
RT: “Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness’” (James 2:21-23 NIV).
GW: You are still missing the point. See above.
RT: It was never God’s purpose for Abraham to kill his son, but only to test Abraham. Abraham’s and Isaac’s actions were a small-scale illustration of what God and his Son would do.
GW: God would neither give an immoral command nor test loyalty in the manner described in the story. If you think God would do these things, then your morality is severely deficient. Perhaps your own god, Tuckergod, would do these things. So would he be amoral or immoral? Do you know the difference? I will tell you.
GW: Amoral – having no moral code, disregarding the interests of other persons, or being indifferent to the needs, values, or suffering of other persons.
GW: Immoral – behaving contrary to Correct Universal Ethics in an intentional and malicious manner; deliberately, recklessly, or negligently harming others in violation of well accepted moral standards.
RT: “God presented Christ as sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood” (Romans 3:25 NIV).
GW: If he did exist, God would never do this either. It would be immoral.
RT: “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son” (John 3:16 NIV).
“Jesus Christ laid down his life for us” (1 John 3:16 NIV).
GW: If God did exist, he would never arrange for his own son to be humiliated, tortured, and murdered. That would be completely immoral. You have a very poor understanding of the concept of God.
RT: No other ancient writings have better authenticity than the Bible does.
GW: Even if this were true, it is irrelevant. We are discussing the truth of the verses, not their authenticity. Most of the verses are authentically false!
RT: The Bible is in a class of its own regarding the number of ancient manuscripts,
GW: This has nothing to do with the truth of the content.
RT: and the proximity of them to the original time of composition,
GW: Most of the oldest manuscripts have been judged by experts to not be original and not produced close to the time of original composition. They are copies in a long chain.
RT: archaeological evidence,
GW: There are only a few archeological finds which correspond to Biblical descriptions. I think there is a coin with Pilate’s name on it.
RT: quotes from other ancient writers,
GW: There are no reports of first-person author-identified eye-witness reports of anyone who observed or met with Jesus. See Bart Ehrman’s work on this.
RT: and accurate fulfillment of prophecy.
GW: Naturalistic Explanations of Supposedly Accurate Prophesies:
1. Later authors knew earlier prophesies and fabricated stories to match those prophesies.
2. Some persons knew earlier prophesies and acted in such a way to match them. (Self-fulfilling prophesy)
3. Most prophesies are vague, ambiguous, or imprecise. Rarely do they predict who, what, when, where, why, and how.
4. Some prophets may have just been good historians or sociologists who are correct in their predictions at a higher rate than lay persons.
5. Lucky guesses.
6. True positives are cherry-picked and false positives are ignored.
7. Metaphorical, figurative, or other non-literal writing is mistakenly interpreted as a prediction of the future.
There are thousands of examples of “Archaeological Evidence” in support in support of the Bible. Please look at some of these that are listed under that heading under this category on this website. There are many, many more evidences which are not on this website, but are easily accessible on the internet. Also, please see the categories “New Testament Manuscript Evidence” and “New Testament Proofs” on this website.
I know of only one, the one I mentioned. If you would like for me to consider others, then present some specific examples. My guess is that there are no artifacts supporting the existence of Adam and Eve, Abraham, Moses, or Jesus. The first four are probably fictitious characters. Although I do believe that Jesus did exist (so does Bart Ehrman), I don’t think there are any physical artifacts to support his existence or any of his alleged miracles.
Verification of Jesus’ existence exists in both Jewish and Roman literature. The b. Sanhedrin 43a text from the Babylonian Talmud says that Jesus was “hanged” on Passover eve for being a sorcerer and enticer to apostasy, but that prior to his execution the Jewish officials waited 40 days for someone to bring forward evidence in his defense. While this contradicts the New Testament account, it does affirm Jesus’ existence, his condemnation by Jewish officials and his execution at the time of the passover.
“Testimonium Flavianum” by Josephus in his Antiquities, 18.63-64, completed in 93 CE, describes the days of Pontius Pilate. It says,
“At this time, a wise man (if it appropriate to call him a man), appeared. For he was a worker of incredible deeds, a teacher of men who happily receive the truth, and he drew to himself many Jews–and many Greeks, too. This man was the Christ. And when Pilate had executed him at the instigation of the leading men among us, those who had loved him did not give up. For he appeared to them on the third day alive again (the divine prophets had spoken concerning him of these and countless other wonders). And to this day the tribe of ‘Christians’ (named after him) has not vanished.”
Some don’t like this because of its confessional tone, and, without any evidence, claim it’s an interpolation by a later Christian scribe. However, this false claim is refuted by the fact that in Antiquities 20.200 Josephus described the martyrdom of Jesus, whom he identified simply as “the brother of Jesus called Christ.” Such a passing reference to Jesus suggests that either he felt Jesus needed no introduction, or that Josephus himself had already introduced him to the reader.
There are several references to Christians in and indirectly to Jesus in Roman literature. Two are particularly important:
Suetonius, in Claudius 25.4 of The lives of the Caesars (circa 120 CE), described riots among the Jews at Rome during the reign of Claudius in 49 CE, and said these riots were instigated by “Chrestus,” which numerous scholars suggest to be a garbled version of “Christ.”
Tacitus, in Annals, 15.44 (circa 115 CE), mentioned Christians, and made clear that Nero had wrongly made Christians scapegoats whom he blamed for the fires at Rome in 64 CE. Of the term “Christian”, he stated that, “The author of this name, Christ, suffered the ultimate penalty at the hands of procurator Pontius Pilate during the imperium of Tiberius.”
Many persons and episodes from the ancient world would be unknown to us except for their mention in single historical document or inscription. All things considered, the evidence for the historical Jesus in ancient sources, to say nothing of the New Testament and the Christian Church, is more than adequate.
Jesus regarded the Genesis account as genuine, and Adam and Eve as real, actual people. For example, he said, “‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female . . . ?'” (Matthew 19:4 NIV). He also regarded Old Testament accounts about Abraham and Moses as true, considered them as real, actual people, and referred to them by name many times.
“Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad”
(John 8:56 NIV).
“If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me” (John 5:46 NIV).
RT: Verification of Jesus’ existence exists in both Jewish and Roman literature. The b. Sanhedrin 43a text from the Babylonian Talmud says that Jesus was “hanged” on Passover eve for being a sorcerer and enticer to apostasy, but that prior to his execution the Jewish officials waited 40 days for someone to bring forward evidence in his defense.
GW: Apparently you are paraphrasing. Please provide a quote, citation, and link to back up your claims here.
RT: While this contradicts the New Testament account, it does affirm Jesus’ existence, his condemnation by Jewish officials and his execution at the time of the passover.
GW: Why are you focusing here on Jesus rather than the other men I mentioned? You, Bart Ehrman, and I all agree that Jesus probably existed. However, Bart and I don’t believe he was divine or performed miracles.
RT: “Testimonium Flavianum” by Josephus in his Antiquities, 18.63-64, completed in 93 CE, describes the days of Pontius Pilate. It says,
“At this time, a wise man (if it appropriate to call him a man), appeared. For he was a worker of incredible deeds, a teacher of men who happily receive the truth, and he drew to himself many Jews–and many Greeks, too. This man was the Christ. And when Pilate had executed him at the instigation of the leading men among us, those who had loved him did not give up. For he appeared to them on the third day alive again (the divine prophets had spoken concerning him of these and countless other wonders). And to this day the tribe of ‘Christians’ (named after him) has not vanished.”
GW: Thanks for providing a quote and a citation. Most experts, including Bart Ehrman, agree that the following words are interpolations and were not in the original text of Josephus:
“(if it appropriate to call him a man)”
“ This man was the Christ.”
“ For he appeared to them on the third day alive again (the divine prophets had spoken concerning him of these and countless other wonders).”
RT: Some don’t like this because of its confessional tone, and, without any evidence, claim it’s an interpolation by a later Christian scribe.
GW: I believe that it does not have a “confessional tone” and that it was an interpolation.
RT: However, this false claim is refuted by the fact that in Antiquities 20.200 Josephus described the martyrdom of Jesus, whom he identified simply as “the brother of Jesus called Christ.” Such a passing reference to Jesus suggests that either he felt Jesus needed no introduction, or that Josephus himself had already introduced him to the reader.
GW: Your comment here is completely consistent with the idea of interpolated words. You can use the writings of Josephus to support the existence of Jesus, but not to support claims of his divinity or miracles. Jesus probably was called “Christ.” Some people probably mistakenly thought he was divine and performed miracles. So what?
RT: There are several references to Christians in and indirectly to Jesus in Roman literature. Two are particularly important:
GW: Evidence for Christians is not evidence for Jesus per se. But we already agree that Jesus probably existed, so why do you bring this up? Talk about Adam and Eve, Abraham, Moses, and God for whom there is little or no evidence.
RT: Suetonius, in Claudius 25.4 of The lives of the Caesars (circa 120 CE), described riots among the Jews at Rome during the reign of Claudius in 49 CE, and said these riots were instigated by “Chrestus,” which numerous scholars suggest to be a garbled version of “Christ.”
GW: So what? Don’t we agree that Jesus probably existed and that some of his followers probably called him “Christ”? You don’t have any physical artifacts pertinent to Jesus or any first-hand author-identified eye-witness reports of anything Jesus said or did. Nothing!
RT: Tacitus, in Annals, 15.44 (circa 115 CE), mentioned Christians, and made clear that Nero had wrongly made Christians scapegoats whom he blamed for the fires at Rome in 64 CE. Of the term “Christian”, he stated that, “The author of this name, Christ, suffered the ultimate penalty at the hands of procurator Pontius Pilate during the imperium of Tiberius.”
GW: Ok, let us also agree that Jesus was probably crucified by the Romans. No problem.
RT: Many persons and episodes from the ancient world would be unknown to us except for their mention in single historical document or inscription. All things considered, the evidence for the historical Jesus in ancient sources, to say nothing of the New Testament and the Christian Church, is more than adequate.
GW: Let’s briefly review what we agree on, i.e. PROBABLY Jesus existed, was a traveling minister promoting new ideas, was called “Christ” by some of his followers, and was crucified by the Romans. Nothing supernatural there.
RT: Jesus regarded the Genesis account as genuine, and Adam and Eve as real, actual people.
GW: There is no good evidence for this, but Jesus may have believed that the story was true. So what? We now know that it could not have been true, and I have explained why.
RT: For example, he said, “‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female . . . ?’” (Matthew 19:4 NIV).
GW: This quote could be purely fictitious or based on a rumor. There is no good evidence that the quote is genuine.
RT: He also regarded Old Testament accounts about Abraham and Moses as true, considered them as real, actual people, and referred to them by name many times. “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad” (John 8:56 NIV). “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me” (John 5:46 NIV).
GW: Again, these quotes could be true, but there is no good evidence for them. Jesus was apparently a practicing Jew and so he may have believed the stories of the OT. So what? Jesus’ religious beliefs, even if we knew them, would not be evidence for his divinity or performance of miracles.
GW: You continue to evade the issue I have brought up at least 13X now. Here it is again: The existence of God hinges on a proper understanding of morality. There are only seven possible good reasons to allow significant harm to others:
1. You lack knowledge of the probable harm.
2. You probably lack the power to prevent the harm.
3. You probably would be killed in an attempt to prevent the harm.
4. You probably would be significantly injured in an attempt to prevent the harm.
5. You probably would suffer significantly in an attempt to prevent the harm.
6. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to prevent a greater harm.
7. Allowing the harm is probably necessary to produce a greater compensating benefit.
But if God did exist, because of his nature he could and would not have any of these good reasons to allow the harm! Traits of his nature would include: all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, perfectly invincible, and perfectly rational. It would not be possible for God to have any of the seven possible good reasons or excuses to allow the harm. And so, he would necessarily prevent the harm, if he did exist. You have no adequate answer for this. In fact, no apologist for religion in the history of humankind has ever had an adequate answer for this.
GW: Furthermore, if God ever did have any good reasons to allow significant harm, he would declare these reasons to everybody, but especially to the victims and their families. No all-powerful and perfectly moral person is going to hide good reasons for allowing harm which he could have prevented! Duh. This is obvious.
The text from the Babylonian Talmud was identified. You can look it up for yourself, if you’re really interested. Your “experts” assertions that some of the phrases in Josephus’ Antiquities are “interpolations” are without any supporting evidence .
Most scholars, both theist and atheist, believe that those words I identified in the work by Josephus are interpolations (later additions) by Christian advocates, and these scholars have good evidences, reasons, and arguments for their belief. Your position is in the minority and not well founded.
Josephus was a traditional Jew who would not have included pro-Christian statements in his history.
We do not disagree on the existence of Jesus. We just disagree on divinity and miracles.
You continue to evade the most important issues, e.g. morality. What is morality? If God does not exist, where does morality come from? Can morality be objective? Can it be universal? Can it be correct or incorrect? Let’s discuss issues like that.
Although Josephus was a nationalist Jew in his earlier life, he fully defected to the Roman side, and was no longer a “traditional Jew” in any sense of the term. His Antiquities of the Jews (written circa 93-94) was written from a Jewish perspective about the history of the world for an ostensibly Greco-Roman audience. While so-called “scholars” and “experts” don’t want to believe that he wrote what he did about Jesus Christ in this work, their opinions do not effectively counter the facts.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”—The Declaration of Independence
Where did these ideas come from? Thomas Jefferson said it was the “Creator.”
It is universally believed that it is wrong to kill innocent humans for no reason. Some may deny this and commit murder anyway, but deep in their hearts they know murder is wrong. Even serial killers know murder is wrong–they just may feel no remorse. Like all absolute moral laws, murder is wrong for everyone, everywhere in the world, at all times. How do we know the universal Moral Law exists?
1. The Moral Law is undeniable
2. We know it by our reactions
3. It is the basis for human rights
4. It is the unchanging standard of justice
5. It defines a real difference in people (for example, a Mother Teresa vs. Hitler)
6. Since we know what’s absolutely wrong, their must be an absolute standard of rightness
7. The Moral Law is the basis for political and social dissent
8. If there were no Moral Law, then we wouldn’t make excuses for violating it
Some call the Moral Law “conscience”; others call it “Natural Law”; still others (like the US ‘Founding Fathers’) call it “Nature’s Law.” whatever it’s called, the fact is that a moral standard has been prescribed on on minds of all humans. This points to a Moral Law Prescriber. Every prescription has a prescriber. The Moral Law is no different. Someone must have given us these moral obligations. This points to the existence of a theistic God. Why?
1. Every law has a lawgiver
2. There is a Moral Law
3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver
Not everyone agrees with this conclusion. However, everyone more or less agrees that there is a Moral Law. For example, liars don’t like to be lied to, thieves don’t like to be stolen from, murderers don’t want to be murdered, pro-abortionists are glad they weren’t aborted, etc. Why?
God “put [his] laws in their minds, and [wrote] them on their hearts” (Hebrews 8:10 NIV).
RT: Although Josephus was a nationalist Jew in his earlier life, he fully defected to the Roman side, and was no longer a “traditional Jew” in any sense of the term.
GW: He was a Jew, probably religiously, genetically, and culturally, even though he became loyal to the Romans. He was a traditional Jew in several ways.
RT: His Antiquities of the Jews (written circa 93-94) was written from a Jewish perspective about the history of the world for an ostensibly Greco-Roman audience.
GW: I mostly agree with that. According to Wikipedia, “Flavius Josephus…c. 37 – c. 100, was a first-century Romano-Jewish historian and military leader, best known for “The Jewish War,” who was born in Jerusalem—then part of Roman Judea—to a father of priestly descent and a mother who claimed royal ancestry.” Josephus didn’t begin writing history for decades after Jesus died. He never met or observed Jesus.
RT: While so-called “scholars” and “experts” don’t want to believe that he wrote what he did about Jesus Christ in this work, their opinions do not effectively counter the facts.
GW: They have the probable facts about the passages we discussed, not you. I will trust them on this point, not you.
GW: Here is a summary of the various positions:
“Scholars fall into three basic camps regarding Antiquities 18:63:
1. The original passage is entirely authentic—a minority position;
2. it is entirely a Christian forgery – a much smaller minority position; and
3. it contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus’s original, authentic material about Jesus—the large majority position today, particularly in view of the Agapian text (immediately above) which shows no signs of interpolation.”
https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/josephus-and-jesus/
Of course, I endorse #3, which is the majority position.
GW: You continue to evade a discussion of morality, which is central to the discussion of God’s existence. I remain ready and willing to discuss this with you.
GW: Why did some people invent God and others did not? Why do some people believe in God and others do not, even when the evidence for his existence is so weak and evidence against his existence is so strong? These are psychological questions.
It is estimated that about 6 billion people, or 85% of the world’s population, believe in God, in some form or other.
I tend to agree with that estimate. It is too bad that so many people are mistaken. God does not exist, and this has been proven. Most people believe in God for psychological reasons having to do with wanting a helper to acquire benefits and avoid harms, especially death.
RT: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”—The Declaration of Independence
GW: I believe this is a correct quote.
RT: Where did these ideas come from? Thomas Jefferson said it was the “Creator.”
GW: Thomas Jefferson was mistaken about this. These ideas came from the minds of men, especially John Locke. Jefferson was a deist, not a theist or a Christian. And God does not exist.
RT: It is universally believed that it is wrong to kill innocent humans for no reason.
GW: It is nearly universally believed by human beings that it is wrong to kill other human beings for no good reason. But there is still much debate about what is a good reason, e.g. note the disputes over capital punishment and abortion.
RT: Some may deny this and commit murder anyway, but deep in their hearts they know murder is wrong.
GW: Do they? After having worked in prisons for 23 years, I believe there is a small percentage of human beings who do not consider killing another human wrong in all the circumstances we consider it to be wrong.
RT: Even serial killers know murder is wrong–they just may feel no remorse.
GW: Do they? Are you sure about that? See above.
RT: Like all absolute moral laws, murder is wrong for everyone, everywhere in the world, at all times.
GW: That is a tautology. Murder is an act DEFINED to be wrong. Killing a human being is not always wrong. It depends on the circumstances.
RT: How do we know the universal Moral Law exists?
1. The Moral Law is undeniable
GW: False. Many people deny it. Many do not even recognize a correct universal moral code. They are usually relativists.
2. We know it by our reactions
GW: False. People have varied reactions. Some are indifferent, apathetic, or even malicious.
3. It is the basis for human rights
GW: Some moral code is the basis for human rights.
4. It is the unchanging standard of justice
GW: Unfortunately, standards of justice and morality have changed over the centuries.
5. It defines a real difference in people (for example, a Mother Teresa vs. Hitler)
GW: Yes, people vary in their moral character, but this is not necessarily evidence for a standard moral code.
6. Since we know what’s absolutely wrong, their [there] must be an absolute standard of rightness
GW: All of us don’t know what is absolutely wrong. However, I think you and I agree that there is a correct universal moral code. I have called it “Correct Universal Ethics (CUE).” Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, has called it “objective morality,” but he and I differ on the source.
7. The Moral Law is the basis for political and social dissent
GW: When you use the word “the” you are talking as if there is only one moral code, when there are actually hundreds or even thousands of moral codes. But if you are referring to CUE, then yes, it should be used as the basis for law and for political and social dissent.
8. If there were no Moral Law, then we wouldn’t make excuses for violating it
GW: Some people don’t make excuses for violating a moral law.
RT: Some call the Moral Law “conscience”;
GW: That is completely mistaken. The conscience is a psychological mechanism which produces feelings of guilt, shame, and embarrassment for violating the particular moral code under which a person has been raised.
RT: others call it “Natural Law”;
GW: This is also completely mistaken and even confusing. One type of natural law refers to the descriptions of the way the universe works, as we have discussed. Moral law cannot be directly derived from the facts of nature.
RT: still others (like the US ‘Founding Fathers’) call it “Nature’s Law.”
GW: Same mistake as noted above.
RT: whatever it’s called, the fact is that a moral standard has been prescribed on on minds of all humans.
GW: False. Not “prescribed.” Not on all minds. Moral codes vary greatly. We need CUE.
RT: This points to a Moral Law Prescriber. Every prescription has a prescriber. The Moral Law is no different. Someone must have given us these moral obligations.
GW: All known moral codes have been devised by human beings. Some of them are good codes, others not so good. We need CUE.
RT: This points to the existence of a theistic God.
GW: False. It points to the existence of human beings.
RT: Why? 1. Every law has a lawgiver
GW: Every known moral code has been devised by human beings.
RT: 2. There is a Moral Law
GW: There are many moral codes. But we need CUE.
RT: 3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver
GW: All known moral codes were devised and given by human beings.
RT: Not everyone agrees with this conclusion. However, everyone more or less agrees that there is a Moral Law.
GW: You and I agree that there is or should be something like a standard moral code, which I call CUE.
RT: For example, liars don’t like to be lied to, thieves don’t like to be stolen from, murderers don’t want to be murdered,..
GW: I mostly agree with this.
RT: pro-abortionists are glad they weren’t aborted, etc.
GW: You ought not group abortion with lying, theft, and murder. In some circumstances abortion, as an exercise of bodily autonomy, is ethical and should be easy, free, legal, allowed, and/or facilitated. But in other circumstances abortion is unethical and should be difficult, illegal, prevented, and/or penalized. It takes wisdom to recognize the different circumstances. May a civil debate continue
RT: Why? God “put [his] laws in their minds, and [wrote] them on their hearts” (Hebrews 8:10 NIV).
GW: False. God does not exist, and this has been proven. Human beings have devised moral codes. We need CUE.
GW: Thank you for finally discussing morality. That’s a good start. We seem to agree that there is or there should be a correct, universal, objective moral code. So far, so good. I suggest that one moral rule in this code is or should be the following: “Person X should attempt to prevent any moderate to severe harm H1 to any person Y or group of persons Z, if and only if 1) X certainly or probably knows about the opportunity to help by prevention, 2) X is certainly or probably able to prevent the harm, 3) X will certainly or probably not die in the prevention attempt, 4) X will certainly or probably not be permanently injured in the prevention attempt, 5) X will certainly or probably not suffer greatly in the prevention attempt, 6) allowing H1 is probably or certainly not necessary to preventing greater harm H2, and 7) allowing H1 is probably or certainly not necessary to producing a benefit B which outweighs the harm H1. Any person X has a moral duty to attempt to prevent harm H1 if all seven of these contingencies are satisfied. Persons are moral if they attempt to prevent a moderate to severe harm when all seven relevant specific contingencies are met; otherwise they are immoral.”
GW: Now do you agree with this moral rule on prevention or not? If you disagree, then describe, explain, and defend your position. If you disagree, then propose your own moral rule on prevention, and we can compare and debate.
Thomas Jefferson was indeed a deist, which makes the case all the stronger that he, as a non-Christian, non-Theist, recognized that all humans are endowed with unalienable rights by their Creator! Your “CUE” recognizes that there is an objective Moral Law. All humans cultures across all times also recognize this. If just one moral obligation exists (such as don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t rape, don’t torture babies), Then the Moral Law exists. If the Moral Law exists, so does the Moral Law Giver.
As to the so-called “differences” in moral codes, you’re confusing the absolute nature of a moral command with the relative way that command is manifested in different cultures. For example, all cultures have some form of greeting, which is an expression of love and respect. However, cultures differ widely on just what that greeting is. In some it’s a kiss; in some it’s a hug; and in others, it’s handshake or a bow. WHAT should be done is common to all cultures, but how it should be done differs. Failure to make this distinction misleads many to believe that because people have different practices they have different values. The moral value is absolute, but how it is practiced is relative.
RT: Thomas Jefferson was indeed a deist, which makes the case all the stronger that he, as a non-Christian, non-Theist, recognized that all humans are endowed with unalienable rights by their Creator!
GW: We agree that Jefferson was a deist, but he was nevertheless mistaken that rights are unalienable and that they are endowed by a creator. Rights are alienable. They are given by people and can be taken away by people. Rights are also restricted and limited.
RT: Your “CUE” recognizes that there is an objective Moral Law.
GW: Yes, we agree on that point.
RT: All humans cultures across all times also recognize this.
GW: I doubt this. Some human cultures believed that moral codes were true and applicable for their own culture, but not necessarily for other cultures. This view is known as “moral relativism.” On the other hand, you and I believe in a universal moral code.
RT: If just one moral obligation exists (such as don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t rape, don’t torture babies), Then the Moral Law exists.
GW: I disagree. You must make additional assumptions to go from a single even correct moral rule to “the Moral Law.”
RT: If the Moral Law exists, so does the Moral Law Giver.
GW: CUE is equivalent to your “Moral Law.” But it was devised by human persons, not just one. If God did exist, he would have devised CUE just before he created other persons – either angels, humans, or others.
RT: As to the so-called “differences” in moral codes, you’re confusing the absolute nature of a moral command with the relative way that command is manifested in different cultures.
GW: Moral rules are not necessarily moral commands. Moral rules have been devised by human persons since the beginning of humankind 200K years ago. Moral rules do differ across cultures, but you and I have a broader view and endorse CUE. I believe it comes from humans, but you believe it comes from God. You are mistaken since God does not exist. But if God did exist, he would devise, promulgate, apply, and obey CUE. That is what is meant by “God would be perfectly moral.”
RT: For example, all cultures have some form of greeting, which is an expression of love and respect. However, cultures differ widely on just what that greeting is. In some it’s a kiss; in some it’s a hug; and in others, it’s handshake or a bow. WHAT should be done is common to all cultures, but how it should be done differs. Failure to make this distinction misleads many to believe that because people have different practices they have different values.
GW: A greeting is not a moral rule.
RT: The moral value is absolute, but how it is practiced is relative.
GW: I find it useful to talk about moral rules, but not about moral values. A moral rule is a statement about how persons should or should not behave, especially with respect to each other. For example, here is one moral rule: “Any person X should not rape any person Y.” Do you agree with this rule and believe it is a part of CUE?
GW: In step #7 of my argument, I present a particular moral rule about prevention. Here it is again for you to ponder: “Person X should attempt to prevent any moderate to severe harm H1 to any person Y or group of persons Z, if and only if 1) X certainly or probably knows about the opportunity to help by prevention, 2) X is certainly or probably able to prevent the harm, 3) X will certainly or probably not die in the prevention attempt, 4) X will certainly or probably not be permanently injured in the prevention attempt, 5) X will certainly or probably not suffer greatly in the prevention attempt, 6) allowing H1 is probably or certainly not necessary to preventing greater harm H2, and 7) allowing H1 is probably or certainly not necessary to producing a benefit B which outweighs the harm H1. Any person X has a moral duty to attempt to prevent harm H1 if all seven of these contingencies are satisfied. Persons are moral if they attempt to prevent a moderate to severe harm when all seven relevant specific contingencies are met; otherwise they are immoral.”
GW: Now, do you agree with this moral rule and believe it is a part of CUE? If not, then explain and defend your answers.
Your view that abortion is OK sometimes, and sometimes not OK reflects moral relativism. The abortion controversy exists because each side defends what they think is an absolute moral value—protecting life and allowing liberty. The controversy is over which value applies (or takes precedence). If the unborn aren’t humans, the pro-liberty value should be applied. But since the unborn ARE humans, the pro-life value should be applied because a person’s right to life supersedes another person’s right to individual liberty. Even if there were doubt as to when life begins, the benefit of the doubt should be given to protecting life–reasonable people don’t shoot unless they’re absolutely sure they won’t kill an innocent person. As Reagan once quipped, “I’ve noticed that all those in favor of abortion are already born.”
RT: Your view that abortion is OK sometimes, and sometimes not OK reflects moral relativism.
GW: No, you have misunderstood the term “moral relativism” which is ordinarily meant to refer to differences RELATIVE to cultures or groups of persons. All or most moral rules are SITUATIONAL, and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact it is necessary. I will give you one example: “Any person X should not kill any other person Y, except in the SITUATION when it is NECESSARY for X to save his own life.” This SITUATIONAL moral rule is nevertheless universal and not relative to culture. (BTW, I believe there are other situations in which it is moral to kill another human being, but we don’t need to discuss them now.)
RT: The abortion controversy exists because each side defends what they think is an absolute moral value—protecting life and allowing liberty. The controversy is over which value applies (or takes precedence).
GW: There are basically two sides – pro-life and pro-choice, but I have devised a third side which I have labeled “pro-person.” The problem occurs because of conflicts in interests and rights.
RT: If the unborn aren’t humans, the pro-liberty value should be applied.
GW: First, you should not call human organisms inside a woman “unborn.” They have three possible outcomes – birth, miscarriage, or abortion. You ought not call them by the outcome you want to happen. Just call them “zygotes,” “embryos,” or “fetuses” to be accurate and apolitical.
GW: A human embryo is certainly a human organism, but it is certainly not a human person. It all depends on the development of the brain.
RT: But since the unborn ARE humans, the pro-life value should be applied because a person’s right to life supersedes another person’s right to individual liberty.
GW: I agree only if both human organisms are persons, but a fetus does not become a person until about the 24th week post conception. Up till then the right to bodily autonomy of the woman supercedes any aspect of the fetus which has no human rights yet!
RT: Even if there were doubt as to when life begins, the benefit of the doubt should be given to protecting life–reasonable people don’t shoot unless they’re absolutely sure they won’t kill an innocent person.
GW: There is no doubt as to when life begins. It depends on what you are referring to. Life on the Earth began about 3.5 billion years ago. The human species, alive of course, began about 200K years ago. Sperm, eggs, and somatic cells are all alive. A human organism begins at conception, but personhood does not begin until the fetus acquires the capacity for consciousness at about the end of the 24th week post conception. Also, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses can be neither innocent nor guilty. These concepts are not applicable to them.
RT: As Reagan once quipped, “I’ve noticed that all those in favor of abortion are already born.”
GW: But I’ve noticed that all those against abortion are also already born, so Reagan’s comment is worthless.
GW: Now let’s discuss the moral rule on prevention in step #7 of my argument.
US law recognizes the unborn as persons. According to Wikipedia, “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004” is a law that defines ‘child in utero’ as “a member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” This law is very similar to the principle embodied into God’s Law Covenant with ancient Israel. “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely . . . if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:22,23 NIV). In both US law, and God’s law, a “child in utero,” is a person “in the womb AT ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT”.
Ever wonder why those in favor of abortion don’t wish they had been aborted themselves? It’s because they don’t see their own hypocrisy, because they don’t apply the principle, “In everything, do to others what you have them do to you” (Matthew 7:12 NIV).
RT: US law recognizes the unborn as persons.
GW: It is improper to call human organisms inside a host woman “unborn.” I already explained this to you.
GW: Yes and No. It depends on the law in a particular jurisdiction and on the age or stage of development of the human organism inside the host woman. The laws on abortion and personhood are complicated.
RT: According to Wikipedia, “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004″ is a law that defines ‘child in utero’ as “a member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”
GW: Although use of the term “unborn” is inappropriate always, of course a human organism is a member of the species homo sapiens! However, there are different groups of homo sapiens, based on stage of development. Not all human fetuses are human persons.
RT: This law is very similar to the principle embodied into God’s Law Covenant with ancient Israel.
GW: God doesn’t exist, so God doesn’t have a law on anything.
RT: “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely . . . if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:22,23 NIV)..
GW: The verse is poorly stated. If there is serious injury to whom, the fetus or the pregnant woman? Also, God would never endorse or use that primitive morality of “eye for an eye.” In modern human civilizations we’ve totally rejected that view.
RT: In both US law, and God’s law, a “child in utero,” is a person “in the womb AT ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT”
GW: That is just flat out false! You have proven neither. In fact, in Judaism the human organism is not a person until first breath outside the womb. Different religions and different sects within religions have different views of this. If God did exist, we would know his view because he would present it in the grand revelations I have described to you. But these have never occurred. So, we know from this that God does not exist. If he did, he would be perfectly moral and all powerful, and he would this make these grand revelations.
RT: Ever wonder why those in favor of abortion don’t wish they had been aborted themselves?
GW: No I never wonder that. Most people would rather be alive than dead. So what? If a human organism is killed before it becomes a person, it doesn’t know the difference. In fact, it doesn’t know anything at all. Human organisms which are not persons don’t have any rights, even a right to life.
RT: It’s because they don’t see their own hypocrisy, because they don’t apply the principle, “In everything, do to others what you have them do to you” (Matthew 7:12 NIV).
GW: But “others” and “you” refer to persons, not to nonpersons. A zygote, embryo, and early fetus are not persons. So there is no hypocrisy here.
According to both US law and the Bible (Exodus 21:22,23 NIV), it matters not whether it’s called a zygote, a fetus, or an embryo, “a child in utero”, IS “a member of the species Homo Sapiens at any stage of development in the womb”, that is, A HUMAN BEING.
Your “one moral rule” in your “CUE” code, with 7 rules, while complicated, seems to be correct. In the case of Almighty God allowing bad things, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, your rules 6 & 7 prove that greater harm in the long run would result if he did not allow bad things to occur because of the issues raised in Genesis 2:15-17; 3:1-5 and Job 1:6-12; 2:3-6. This is similar to a parent arranging for their child to undergo suffering due to cancer treatment, in order to save the child’s life.
RT: Your “one moral rule” in your “CUE” code, with 7 rules, while complicated, seems to be correct.
GW: It is one rule within the CUE code which has seven contingencies, but I am pleased that you believe it is correct.
RT: In the case of Almighty God allowing bad things, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, your rules 6 & 7 prove that greater harm in the long run would result if he did not allow bad things to occur because of the issues raised in Genesis 2:15-17; 3:1-5 and Job 1:6-12; 2:3-6.
GW: They are contingencies or criteria, not rules. Let’s closely examine the sixth one: “6) allowing H1 is probably or certainly not necessary to preventing greater harm H2.” If God did exist, he would meet this contingency. Why? Because for God it is certain that NOTHING would be necessary for him to achieve some goal. He would be all-powerful. He is not bound by the necessities by which we humans are bound. The same reasoning applies to the seventh contingency.
GW: If you think that there are some cases in which God would not meet these contingencies because of what is presented in those Bible verses, then you must take each verse, quote it accurately, and tell us why it would give God some exemption. I don’t think you can successfully do this.
RT: This is similar to a parent arranging for their child to undergo suffering due to cancer treatment, in order to save the child’s life.
GW: It is similar, but NOT similar enough to carry your claim. Why? If God did exist and were acting on behalf of the parent, it would be CERTAINLY UNNECESSARY for God to arrange (or allow, authorize, or cause) the child to suffer because he could and would save the child’s life without doing that. He would just cure the child instantly! Why? Because he would be all-powerful and perfectly moral. So we can know even from your own example that God doesn’t exist!
GW: Now that you have made it this far, you should be able to see now why God does not exist. If God did exist, it would be CERTAINLY UNNECESSARY for God to allow the Covid pandemic. He would simply prevent it. But we have it anyway. Therefore, God does not and cannot exist! Finally game over!
“Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all had sinned”—Romans 5:12 NIV)
All evil, including the Covid-19 pandemic, exists because of free will. The Bible traces the origin of evil back to the first man, Adam, who, despite being warned, chose to use his free will to violate God’s law (Genesis 2:15-17; 3:1-6). Why does God allow evil? Do we deserve a problem-free life here on earth? You might think so listening to some TV preachers!
Regarding your “contingency # 6”, not allowing evil and problems, such as the pandemic, to exist would result in greater harm than allowing it. Why? Because the issues raised would not be settled. What issues?
Would independence from God’s sovereignty ever bring lasting benefits?
Would God’s direction of humans be better for them, or would humanity’s own direction be better?
Could humans successfully govern this world independent of their Creator?
Do humans really need God’s guidance?
To be adequately settled, it has taken at least several thousand years.
History and current events provide the answers to these questions (Jeremiah 10:23; 2 Peter 3:8,9).
RT: “Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all had sinned”—Romans 5:12 NIV)
GW: This implies that God engaged in unjust harsh punishment and cross-generational punishment. That is impossible! If he did exist, God would never do that. It would be immoral, and God would instead be perfectly moral.
RT: All evil, including the Covid-19 pandemic, exists because of free will.
GW: False. There is no evidence that any human person created or dispersed the first Covid virus through an act of free will. If you disagree, then present your evidence for that.
RT: The Bible traces the origin of evil back to the first man, Adam, who, despite being warned, chose to use his free will to violate God’s law (Genesis 2:15-17; 3:1-6).
GW: You know that is just fiction. But if a man did disobey God, then God would NOT punish in the manner described in Genesis. He would not give the harsh punishment of death just for disobeying a order not to eat a fruit. And he wouldn’t punish the descendants of Adam and Eve. You make God out to be a monster. Well, Genesis does also.
RT: Why does God allow evil? Do we deserve a problem-free life here on earth? You might think so listening to some TV preachers!
GW: Answer your own questions. Would God allow the Covid pandemic? What about bone cancer in children? Apparently you think he would, but why?
RT: Regarding your “contingency # 6”, not allowing evil and problems, such as the pandemic, to exist would result in greater harm than allowing it. Why? Because the issues raised would not be settled. What issues?
GW: “Person X should attempt to prevent any moderate to severe harm H1 to any person Y or group of persons Z, if and only if…6) allowing H1 is probably or certainly not necessary to preventing greater harm H2,…” I think you are not understanding this. Allowing the Covid Pandemic (H1) would certainly not be necessary for God to prevent some greater harm (H2). Why? Because God would be omnipotent nothing would be necessary for him to do. He could prevent H1 and H2 simultaneously.
RT: Would independence from God’s sovereignty ever bring lasting benefits?
GW: This is all about God being all powerful and perfectly moral, not about his sovereignty.
RT: Would God’s direction of humans be better for them, or would humanity’s own direction be better?
GW: Well, if God did exist and he was going to punish people for doing wrong, then surely he would give them the rules in advance. This has not happened.
RT: Could humans successfully govern this world independent of their Creator?
GW: They succeed and fail at governing in our world already when God does not exist.
RT: Do humans really need God’s guidance?
GW: If God did exist, human persons would need his guidance to avoid being sent to hell or to nonexistence. And he would present the rules in grand revelations, as I have described to you many times. This is another way we know that God does not exist.
RT: To be adequately settled, it has taken at least several thousand years.
GW: Absolutely not. If God did exist, he would immediately prevent the Covid pandemic and bone cancer in children. You make God out to be a slow bumbling idiot.
RT: History and current events provide the answers to these questions (Jeremiah 10:23; 2 Peter 3:8,9).
GW: Reason provides the answer – God does not exist. This has been proven
God clearly DID GIVE HUMANS THE RULES IN ADVANCE. “The LORD [Yahweh] God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die” (Genesis 2:16,17 NIV). “The woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but GOD DID SAY, ‘YOU MUST NOT EAT FRUIT FROM THE TREE THAT IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GARDEN, and you must not touch it, or you will die'” (Genesis 3:3 NIV).
RT: God clearly DID GIVE HUMANS THE RULES IN ADVANCE.
GW: You have no good evidence to support this claim. Not even close.
RT: “The LORD [Yahweh] God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die” (Genesis 2:16,17 NIV).
GW: In this fictional story, the character God does give a command to Adam and Eve. But even in the whole Bible, the character God does not present the grand revelations which I have described and which he would present, if he did exist. So, this is how we know that the Bible does not and cannot represent the reality or will of God.
RT: “The woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but GOD DID SAY, ‘YOU MUST NOT EAT FRUIT FROM THE TREE THAT IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GARDEN, and you must not touch it, or you will die’” (Genesis 3:3 NIV).
GW: But even in this work of fiction, the character God did not keep his promise. Adam and Eve did not immediately die when they ate the fruit. Human beings have always died after some variable period of life, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with God. If God did exist, either no humans would ever die or all humans would live life for the same number of years and then die, e.g. 90 years. That would be fair. If God did exist, he would be rational, just, and fair. And so we know that God does not exist. Again, you make God out to be a bumbling idiot. If your own god did exist, that may be the way he would be. But he would not be God.
First, Adam and Eve did indeed “die” spiritually the day they ate the forbidden fruit. The Bible refers to such a spiritual death. For example, “the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives” (1 Timothy 5:6 NIV). The prodigal son’s father, upon his return, said, “this son of mine was dead and is alive” (Luke 15:24 NIV).
Second, physically, too, they began the process of dying the day they ate the forbidden fruit. At that point, Adam and Eve, like all humans after them, were “dying, and yet we live on” (2 Corinthians 6:9 NIV).
Third, they died the day they ate the forbidden fruit, in that, in one sense, “with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter 3:8 NIV).
You seem to be under the impression that God owes us something, such as life, and that all humans should live an equal length of time, and then die. The truth is–he doesn’t. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”, and only deserve one thing–“death” (Romans 3:23; 6:23).
RT: First, Adam and Eve did indeed “die” spiritually the day they ate the forbidden fruit. The Bible refers to such a spiritual death.
GW: Nonsense! You are making the error of equivocation with respect to the word “die.” There is no good evidence that spirits, a spiritual world, or spiritual death even exist. Even the Genesis text shows that Adam and Eve did not immediately die, as God supposedly promised. Besides, God would never make such a promise as that.
RT: For example, “the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives” (1 Timothy 5:6 NIV). The prodigal son’s father, upon his return, said, “this son of mine was dead and is alive” (Luke 15:24 NIV).
GW: Even the Bible authors and interpreters engage in the error of equivocation, using the word “die” in either a literal or metaphorical sense as their mood directs. This is not rational thinking.
RT: Second, physically, too, they began the process of dying the day they ate the forbidden fruit. At that point, Adam and Eve, like all humans after them, were “dying, and yet we live on” (2 Corinthians 6:9 NIV).
GW: But you are playing loose with the words again. Death is a state, not a process. To die is to end life. God’s alleged promise to Adam and Eve did not occur, and if he did exist, God would never make such an irrational and immoral promise anyway.
RT: Third, they died the day they ate the forbidden fruit, in that, in one sense, “with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter 3:8 NIV).
GW: More nonsense by you. God does not exist, but if he did exist, he would use the same clock time as we do in communications with us. Again, you make God out to be some bumbling idiot, and you aren’t the only one.
RT: You seem to be under the impression that God owes us something, such as life, and that all humans should live an equal length of time, and then die.
GW: Now we are getting somewhere! YES, if God did exist, he would OWE US his moral behavior. Why? Because he would be perfectly rational and perfectly moral. Now, if he were that way, then he would ensure that either we all do not die or that we all die after the same number of years. Either way would be moral, just, and fair. But I am undecided about which way it would be.
RT: The truth is–he doesn’t.
GW: The truth is that he would owe us his moral behavior, if he existed. To be perfectly moral includes fulfilling your moral obligations which God would have specified in CUE (Correct Universal Ethics). One important moral rule in CUE is the prevention rule specified in Step #7 of my argument. If you disagree, then present your case.
RT: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”, and only deserve one thing–“death” (Romans 3:23; 6:23).
GW: Since death is one specific invariable outcome, God would not use it as a punishment, as the verse implies. Instead, if God did exist, because he would be perfectly rational and moral, he would make his punishments proportional to the number and severity of sins committed by each individual person. This is known as the principle of individual accountability. So, the verse cannot have come from God, even if he existed, which he doesn’t.
“Died”, “death”, and “dead” are used frequently in speech as metaphors. So your assertion that Bible writers equivocated these words is completely false!
RT: According to both US law and the Bible (Exodus 21:22,23 NIV), it matters not whether it’s called a zygote, a fetus, or an embryo, “a child in utero”, IS “a member of the species Homo Sapiens at any stage of development in the womb”, that is, A HUMAN BEING.
GW: Nonsense! As I said, the laws on abortion and personhood differ across jurisdictions. For example, in Texas the law does not protect human embryos younger than six weeks, and so these embryos are not treated as human persons. In other states, the line is drawn at 15, 20, or 26 weeks.
GW: Of course, a human zygote is a member of the group “zygotes of Homo Sapiens,” but is not a member of the group “human beings” or “human persons.” The human organism becomes a person when it acquires the capacity of consciousness at approximately the end of the 24th week post conception. For more on this, please read my published article: Whittenberger, Gary. “Personhood and Abortion Rights: How Science
Might Inform this Contentious Issue.” Skeptic. Vol. 23, No. 4, 2018,
Pg. 34-39. And eSkeptic at
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/how-science-might-inform-personhood-abortion-rights/
GW: And the Jews disagree with you, as I mentioned last time.
Your beliefs do not square with the facts.
“The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception–fertilization . . . The difference between an individual in the adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature”—American College of Pediatricians, March 2017.
The “nature” is human. The Biblical principle applies:
“Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their own blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6 NIV). Deliberate abortion is murder.
That’s why if “people . . . hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely . . . If there is serious injury, you are to take life for life” (Exodus 21:22,23 NIV).
US law agrees that ‘a child in utero is a human being at any stage of development’. A negligent person who inadvertently causes an abortion is, in effect, a murderer.
RT: Your beliefs do not square with the facts.
GW: I totally disagree. Your beliefs do not square with the facts.
RT: “The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception–fertilization . . . The difference between an individual in the adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature”—American College of Pediatricians, March 2017.
GW: This is partly correct and partly incorrect. The life of an individual human organism begins at conception when the organism is one-celled. This is known as the zygote stage. The difference between a zygote and an adult human organism is one of nature, development, characteristics, capacities, and form.
RT: The “nature” is human.
GW: All human organisms at all stages have human DNA or homo sapiens DNA, but human organisms at different stages have different features, abilities, capacities, and traits and should be treated differently.
RT: The Biblical principle applies: “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their own blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6 NIV).
GW: This is the old and obsolete idea of “an eye for an eye.” It has been refuted. Most human societies no longer practice this barbarity. It does not reflect CUE, which would be the morality of God, if he existed. I don’t know why you still place so much trust in the Bible which was written by ancient and prejudiced men nearly two thousand years ago. Don’t you believe in moral progress?
RT: Deliberate abortion is murder.
GW: Murder is the intentional killing of one human person by another for no good reason. Most human organisms in the womb are not human persons, as I have explained to you several times now. Also, most abortions of fetal persons are done for good reasons. In addition, in law there are different degrees of murder carrying different severities of punishment. IMO, an adult human person convicted of killing a fetal person for no good reason should receive a punishment of one year and one day in prison.
RT: That’s why if “people . . . hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely . . . If there is serious injury, you are to take life for life” (Exodus 21:22,23 NIV).
GW: Serious injury to whom? You really should quote the entire relevant verses here, and then you would see how far off your interpretation is.
RT: US law agrees that ‘a child in utero is a human being at any stage of development’.
GW: False. You are dead wrong about this. I already refuted this claim of yours. See my earlier remarks. You are very confused about these terms: human organism, human person, human being.
RT: A negligent person who inadvertently causes an abortion is, in effect, a murderer.
GW: Abortions are not inadvertently caused. They are always intentionally caused. Here are two examples: An adult person who intentionally kicks a pregnant woman in the abdomen and thereby kills a FETAL PERSON in utero is guilty of two moral infractions and in most jurisdictions is guilty of two crimes. But this is not an abortion. On the other hand, a pregnant woman who intentionally gets an abortion of her embryo (not yet a human person) is almost never guilty of either a moral infraction or a crime. At the least, she should not be found guilty of either.
GW: To gain greater understanding of my views on abortion read my published article: Whittenberger, Gary. “Personhood and Abortion Rights: How Science Might Inform this Contentious Issue.” Skeptic. Vol. 23, No. 4, 2018,
Pg. 34-39. And eSkeptic at
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/how-science-might-inform-personhood-abortion-rights/
“The LORD [Yahweh] is our judge, the LORD [Yahweh] is our lawgiver” (Isaiah 33:22 NIV), not you. So it doesn’t really matter what you think, these are his laws.
Deliberately causing abortion of an unborn person at any stage of development, even a “zygote”, in the womb, is considered murder by Almighty God (Genesis 9:6; Matthew 26:52).
You’re in denial about the fact of spontaneous abortion. God holds those responsible who negligently cause a pregnant woman to have a spontaneous abortion (Exodus 21:22,23).
RT: “The LORD [Yahweh] is our judge, the LORD [Yahweh] is our lawgiver” (Isaiah 33:22 NIV), not you. So it doesn’t really matter what you think, these are his laws.
GW: God does not exist, and so he has no laws. It doesn’t really matter what you think, unless you can find an error in my argument, and you haven’t.
RT: Deliberately causing abortion of an unborn person at any stage of development, even a “zygote”, in the womb, is considered murder by Almighty God (Genesis 9:6; Matthew 26:52).
GW: First, use of the term “unborn” is misleading and improper, as I have explained to you several times. Secondly, all human organisms inside a host female are not persons, as I have also told you several times. Thirdly, the Bible never uses the term “abortion.” The modern meaning is “the deliberate premature removal of a human organism from a host female.” You are not being consistent in your use of the term. Fourthly, the Bible takes no clear position on abortion, as it is understood in our modern times. Fifthly, you haven’t even presented any verses supporting your claim of abortion as murder in this context. And lastly, God does not exist, as I have shown you many times.
RT: You’re in denial about the fact of spontaneous abortion.
GW: Miscarriages occur fairly often.
RT: God holds those responsible who negligently cause a pregnant woman to have a spontaneous abortion (Exodus 21:22,23).
GW: You have failed to provide any supporting quote here.
The Bible includes unborn humans as being “life” that is to e respected (Exodus 21:22,23). “You created my inmost self, knit me together in my mother’s womb . . . You knew me through and through, my being had no secrets from you, when I was being formed in secret . . . Your eyes saw my embryo” (Psalm 139:13-16 NJB). God considers one to be a human person from the moment of conception. God says that anyone, including those who cause abortion, who “sheds human blood” is to be executed (Genesis 9:6 NIV). “Murderers”, including those who cause abortion, will spend eternity in “the second death” of non-existence (Revelation 21:8).
RT: “Died”, “death”, and “dead” are used frequently in speech as metaphors. So your assertion that Bible writers equivocated these words is completely false!
GW: But in Genesis, God promises Adam and Eve that they will immediately die if they disobey. This seems to be a promise of physical death. Then after disobedience they don’t immediately die physically. In the same situation, the word must be consistently used and consistently interpreted in the same way.
You’re making up your own rules, so as to dictate how God should act. When you can answer the questions God posed in Job chapters 38-41, you may be qualified to tell him something. You would be wise to learn from, and imitate, Job, who humbly admitted, “I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted . . . surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me,” and repented (Job 42:2,3,6 NIV).
RT: You’re making up your own rules, so as to dictate how God should act.
GW: The rules of Correct Universal Ethics are correct, regardless of God’s existence. But if God did exist, because he would be perfectly rational and moral, he would devise, endorse, authorize, proclaim, implement, enforce, and comply with CUE.
RT: When you can answer the questions God posed in Job chapters 38-41, you may be qualified to tell him something.
GW: I can answer all the questions posed in Job. Just ask me one and I’ll answer it. But since God does not exist, nobody can tell him anything and he can’t tell us anything. If he did exist, however, God would present himself, the moral rules, and the consequences of compliance and noncompliance in GRAND REVELATIONS which I have described to you many times. This has never happened and is another reason we know God does not exist.
RT: You would be wise to learn from, and imitate, Job, who humbly admitted, “I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted . . . surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me,” and repented (Job 42:2,3,6 NIV).
GW: Why would I emulate Job? He believed in God when God does not exist.
GW: I recommend to you Bart Ehrman’s book “God’s Problem.” It discusses the problems in Job in great detail.
RT: The Bible includes unborn humans as being “life” that is to e respected (Exodus 21:22,23).
GW: No, it doesn’t.
RT: “You created my inmost self, knit me together in my mother’s womb . . .
GW: This refers to God’s alleged involvement in the development of human organisms inside the host female. These organisms are not persons in the early stages. This says nothing about respect.
RT: You knew me through and through, my being had no secrets from you, when I was being formed in secret . . . Your eyes saw my embryo” (Psalm 139:13-16 NJB).
GW: This refers to God’s feature of being all knowing. Again, the organisms are not persons in the early stages. This says nothing about respect.
RT: God considers one to be a human person from the moment of conception.
GW: You have provided no evidence or proof for this. If God did exist, he would consider a human organism to be a human person from the onset of consciousness, not conception.
RT: God says that anyone, including those who cause abortion, who “sheds human blood” is to be executed (Genesis 9:6 NIV).
GW: Where’s the quote? You are probably misinterpreting the verse, as you are prone to do. The Bible does not mention abortion or even the same idea as it is known today. An abortion is an intentional premature removal of the human organism residing inside a host female.
RT: “Murderers”, including those who cause abortion, will spend eternity in “the second death” of non-existence (Revelation 21:8)
GW: Pure rubbish. If God did exist, he would not punish women for most of the abortions they have, but would punish some women for some of the abortions they have, and the punishment would be some extra time in hell, not non-existence. You have no idea of perfect justice. Here are the main principles of it:
1. Any valid authority with the power of reward and punishment should always clearly declare in advance to all subjects the rules for wrongful behavior and virtuous behavior, including the consequences of obedience and disobedience to the rules.
2. If any person X engages in wrongful behavior, then the valid authority should reliably punish X without exception.
3. The valid authority should always administer punishment which is proportional in severity (usually duration of incarceration) to the severity of wrongful behavior. “Let the punishment fit the crime.”
4. The valid authority should never punish other persons for the wrongful behavior of any person X.
5. The valid authority should never punish anyone forever or indefinitely.
6. In regard to punishment the valid authority should never engage in forgiveness, mercy, probation, parole, or atonement, all of which are miscarriages of justice.
7. In regard to punishment the valid authority should generally cause harm to an offender X to a degree that an offender X caused harm to others in his offense.
8. If any person X engages in virtuous behavior, then the valid authority should reliably reward X without exception.
9. The valid authority should always administer reward which is proportional in degree (usually duration of pleasant circumstances) to the degree of virtuous behavior.
10, The valid authority should never reward other persons for the virtuous behavior of any person X.
11. The valid authority should never reward anyone forever or indefinitely.
12. The valid authority should always reward and punish only for purposes of instruction, correction, behavior change, and example to others.
13. The valid authority should never discriminate in reward and punishment on account of race, sex, gender, ethnicity, geographic location, religious belief, sorry feelings, or any other irrelevant factor.
14. In regard to both reward and punishment the valid authority should always give subjects exactly what they deserve, no more and no less.