BIBLE DATES PROVEN TO BE ACCURATE
In contrast to many other religious works, such as Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, the Apocryphal Books, the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, etc., for example, the Bible has a number of dates that can be cross-checked with surviving ancient records and accurately related to our modern calendar. These facts are just some of the ways that the Bible has proven to authentic and genuine. Some examples follow.
“In the ninth year Zedekiah’s reign, on the tenth day of the month of the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon marched against Jerusalem with his whole army. He encamped outside the city and built site works all around it. The city was kept under siege until the eleventh year of King Zedekiah”—2 Kings 25:1 NIV
“A number of events in 2 Kings can be cross-checked with dates in surviving Babylonian records and related accurately to our modern modern calendar. This day was January 15, 588 B.C.”—NLT footnote on 2 Kings 25:1
“By the ninth day of the fourth month the famine in the city had become so severe that there was no food for the people to eat”—2 Kings 25:3 NIV
“The date was July 18, 586 B.C.; also see note on 25:1”—NLT footnote on 2 Kings 25:3
“On the seventh day of the fifth month, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan commander of the imperial guard, an official of the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem”—2 Kings 25:8 NIV
“This date was August 14, 586 B. C.; also see note on 25:1”—NLT footnote on 2 Kings 25:8
“In the seventh month, however, Ishmael son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, who was of royal blood, came with ten men and assassinated Gedaliah”—2 Kings 25:8 NIV
“This month occurred within the months of October and November 586 B.C.; also see note on 25:1”—NLT footnote on 2 Kings 25:25
“In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Awel-Marduk became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison. He did this on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month”— Kings 25:27 NIV
“This day was April 2, 561 B.C.; also see note on 25:1”—NLT footnote on 2 Kings 25:27.
“The temple was completed on the third day of the month Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius”—Ezra 6:15 NIV
“A number of events in Ezra can be cross-checked with dates in surviving Persian records and related accurately to our modern calendar. This day was April 21, 515 B.C.”—NLT footnote on Ezra 6:15
“On the fourteenth day of the first month, the exiles celebrated the passover”—Ezra 6:19 NIV
“This date was April 21, 515 B.C.; also see note on 6:15—NLT footnote on Ezra 6:19
“Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in the fifth month of the seventh year of the king. He had begun his journey from Babylon on the first day of the first month, and he arrived in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month, for the gracious hand of his God was upon him”—Ezra 7:8,9 NIV
“This date was April 8, 458 B.C.; also see note on 6:15”—NLT footnote on Ezra 7:9
“On the twelfth day of the first month we set out from the Ahava Canal to go Jerusalem . The hand of our God was on us, and he protected us from enemies and bandits along the way”—Ezra 8:31 NIV
“This date was April 19, 458 B.C.; also see note on 6:15”—NLT footnote on Ezra 8:31
“Within three days, all the men of Judah and Benjamin had gathered in Jerusalem. And on the twentieth day of the ninth month, all the people were sitting in the square before the house of God, greatly distressed by the occasion and because of the rain”—Ezra 10:9 NIV
“This day was December 19, 458 B.C.; also see note on 6:15—NLT footnote on Ezra 10:9
“On the first day of the first month of the tenth month they sat down to investigate the cases”—Ezra 10:16 NIV
“This day was December 29, 458 B.C.; also see note on 6:15”—NLT footnote on Ezra 10:16
“By the first day of the first month they finished dealing with all the men who had married foreign women”—Ezra 10:17 NIV
“This day was March 27, 567 B.C.; also see note on 6:15”—NLT footnote on Ezra 10:17
“The words of Nehemiah son of Hakaliah: In the month of Kislev in the twentieth year, while I was in the citadel of Susa, Hanani, one of my brothers, came from Judah with some other men, and I questioned them about the jewish remnant that had survived the exile, and also about Jerusalem”—Nehemiah 1:1,2 NIV
“A number of dates in the book of Nehemiah can be cross-checked with dates in surviving Persian records and accurately related to our modern calendar. this month of the ancient Hebrew lunar calendar occurred within the months of November and December 446 B.C.”—NLT footnote on Nehemiah 1:1
“So the wall was completed on the twenty-fifth of Elul, in fifty-two days”—Nehemiah 6:15 NIV
“This day was October 2, 445 B.C.”—NLT footnote on Nehemiah 6:15
Also, see 8:2,13,14; 9:1
“She was taken to King Xerxes in the royal residence in the tenth month, the month of Tebeth, in the seventh year of his reign”—Esther 2:16 NIV
“A number of dates in the book of Esther can be cross-checked with dates in surviving records and related accurately to our modern. This month of the ancient Hebrew lunar calendar occurred within the months of December 479 B.C. and January 478 B.C.”—NLT footnote on Esther 2:16
Also, see Esther 3:7,12,13; 8:9,12; 9:1,15,17
“Through the reign of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, down to the fifth month of the eleventh year of Zedekiah son of Josiah king of Josiah king of Judah, when the people of Judah went into exile”—Jeremiah 1:3 NIV
“A number of events in Jeremiah can be cross-checked with dates in surviving Babylonian records and related accurately to our modern calendar. The fifth month in the eleventh year of Zedekiah’s reign occurred within the months of August and September 586 B.C.”—NLT footnote on Jeremiah 1:3
Also, see Jeremiah 25:1,3; 26:1; 28:1,17; 32:1; 36:1,9; 39:1,2; 41:1; 45:1; 51:59; 52:4,6,12,28,29,30,31
“In my thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day, while I was among the exiles by the Kebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God. On the fifth of the month–it was the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin”—Ezekiel 1:1 NIV
“A number of dates in Ezekiel can be cross-checked with dates in surviving Babylonian records and related accurately to our modern calendar. This event occurred on July 31, 593 B.C.”—NLT footnote on Ezekiel 1:1
Also, see Ezekiel 8:1; 20:1; 26:1; 29:1,17; 30:17; 31:1; 32:1,17; 33:21; 40:1
“On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river, the Tigris”—Daniel 10:4 NIV
“This date in Daniel can be cross-checked with dates in surviving Persian records and can be related accurately to our modern calendar. This event occurred on April 23, 536 B.C.”—NLT footnote on Daniel 10:4
Also, see Daniel 1:1,21; 2:1; 5:30; 7:1
“In the second year of King Darius, on the first day of the sixth, the word of the LORD came through the prophet Haggai to Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua son of Jozadak, the high priest”—Haggai 1:1 NIV
“A number of dates in Haggai can be cross-checked with dates in surviving Persian records and related accurately to our modern calendar. This event occurred on August 29, 520 B.C.”—NLT footnote on Haggai 1:1
Also, see Haggai 1:15; 2:1,10,18,20
“In the eighth month of the second year of of Darius, the word of the LORD came to the prophet Zechariah son of Berekiah, the son od Iddo”—Zechariah 1:1 NIV
“A number of dates in Zechariah can be cross-checked with dates in serviving Persian records and related accurately to our modern calendar. This month of the ancient Hebrew calendar occurred within the months of October and November 520 B.C”—NLT footnote on Zechariah 1:1
Also, see Zechariah 1:7; 7:1,3
While these accurately verified dates in the Bible do not in themselves prove that the entire Bible is “the word of God” (1 Thessalonians 2:13), and “truth” (John 17:17), they certainly help to “make the teaching about God our Savior attractive in every way” (Titus 2:10 NLT). They stand as a solid refutation against critics who claim the Bible isn’t completely accurate. As the scripture says:
“All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame”—Isaiah 45:24 NIV
Although many have tried throughout the ages, no one can prove anything in the Bible false!
89 thoughts on “BIBLE DATES PROVEN TO BE ACCURATE”
Yes, at least some dates of the Bible (expressed not in a modern form) are accurate. Some authors of the Bible intended to and sometimes succeeded in describing some events which actually occurred, but other events which did not. For example, there is no good evidence that Jesus ever came back to life, walked on water, or cast out demons.
There is not a single date in the Bible that can be proven false. If you think there is one, then state it. Nor can you disprove any of the miracles Jesus performed, etc. recorded in the Bible. There has been more added to this article since your comment. Regarding the undeniable proof of Jesus’ resurrection, see the article, “Jesus’ Resurrection–Scriptural Evidence”, and other articles about Jesus’ resurrection on this site.
RT1: There is not a single date in the Bible that can be proven false. If you think there is one, then state it.
GW1: I don’t know if there is a single false date in the Bible. I accept that there are some accurate dates there. The best classification of the Bible is “historical fiction” or “philosophical speculation.”
RT1: Nor can you disprove any of the miracles Jesus performed, etc. recorded in the Bible.
GW1: A direct disproof is not required. You and others have asserted that Jesus performed miracles by the power of God. So since God does not exist, none of the alleged Jesus miracles occurred. Since it has been proven that God does not exist, then it necessarily follows that it has been indirectly proven that the alleged Jesus miracles did not occur. I presented the Holocaust argument to you and you found no error in it. The conclusion stands – God does not exist!
RT1: There has been more added to this article since your comment, and there will be even more. Regarding the undeniable proof of Jesus’ resurrection, see the article, “Jesus’ resurrection–Scriptural Evidence”, and other articles about Jesus’ resurrection on this site.
GW1: All this has been presented before, and it doesn’t matter. There is not a single first-person author-identified low-bias eye-witness report of any event in the life of Jesus. Not one. Just unverified stories. Jesus is dead. If you believe he is still alive, then arrange a meeting of him, you, me, and a group of our atheist and theist friends. You can’t. You won’t.
GW1: Today’s bonus question: Which characters in the stories observed Jesus inside the tomb rise from the slab and come back to life?
“All Scripture [that is, the 66 canonical Bible books] is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true” (2 Timothy 3:16 NLT). The examples given in this article of verified Biblical dates that have been cross-checked with surviving Babylonian and Persian records adds to this testimony. Much of the Biblical testimony about Jesus is based on “eyewitness reports” (Luke 1:1 NLT), and from “those whom heard him speak” (Hebrew 2:3 NLT). The apostle Peter says “we were eyewitnesses” (2 Peter 1:16 NIV). The fact of Jesus’ resurrection has been very amply demonstrated in the articles on this site that deal with that subject. There were plenty of eyewitnesses to his public execution (Mark 15:40,41; John 19:33-35), his death was certified (Mark 15:43-45), and the resurrected Jesus was seen by hundreds of eyewitnesses (1 Corinthians 15:3-7).
RT3: All Scripture [that is, the 66 canonical Bible books] is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true” (2 Timothy 3:16 NLT).
GW3: False. First, there is no good evidence that God has ever communicated, dictated, or inspired any book! We know what the good evidence would be, and it has never been presented or found. The Bible books were written by ancient men roughly in the period 1500 BCE to 200 CE. Secondly, we now know that God does not exist. It only takes one sound argument and one true horrible harm to prove God does not exist. And you have found no error in my Holocaust argument.
RT3: The examples given in this article of verified Biblical dates that have been cross-checked with surviving Babylonian and Persian records adds to this testimony.
GW3: I have not doubted that some dates in the Bible are accurate. Big deal. There are many books of historical fiction and philosophical dissertation that have accurate dates. Accurate dates do not confirm miracles or other alleged supernatural events or entities.
RT3: Much of the Biblical testimony about Jesus is based on “eyewitness reports” (Luke 1:1 NLT), and from “those whom heard him speak” (Hebrew 2:3 NLT).
GW3: Some authors claim that their stories are based on “eyewitness reports” but where are the reports? Either they never existed or they were lost and have never been found. It is irrational to believe that a miracle occurred without the support or validation by high quality eyewitness reports, recordings, or remnants. Sorry, but you just don’t have the goods.
RT3: The apostle Peter says “we were eyewitnesses” (2 Peter 1:16 NIV).
GW3: Let’s look at the full verse (which you should always present): “For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” First, the author does not specifically identify “we.” Who are these alleged people? What are their names? Where are their eyewitness reports? You don’t have them. The author can only be speaking for himself.
GW3: Secondly, the author of 2 Peter has probably misidentified himself. Here is what Wikipedia says about 2 Peter: “The text identifies the author as “Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ” and the epistle is traditionally attributed to Peter the Apostle, but most scholars consider the epistle pseudepigraphical (i.e., authored by one or more of Peter’s followers in Ancient Rome, using Peter as a pseudonym)[3][4][5][6][7] Scholars estimate the date of authorship anywhere from 60 to 150 AD.” Note “most scholars.”
GW3: Here the term “majesty” is not explained. Is the author referring to Jesus coming back to life? Or something more mundane, like his great oratory skills? Even if the author supposedly saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion, there are many valid naturalistic explanations for this. As Bart Ehrman has explained, an actual coming back to life is the least probable explanation for the stories.
RT3: The fact of Jesus’ resurrection has been very amply demonstrated in the articles on this site that deal with that subject.
GW3: False. That is complete nonsense! There is no good evidence that Jesus came back to life – not eye witness reports, not recordings, and not remnants.
RT3: There were plenty of eyewitnesses to his public execution (Mark 15:40,41; John 19:33-35), his death was certified (Mark 15:43-45), and the resurrected Jesus was seen by hundreds of eyewitnesses (1 Corinthians 15:3-7).
GW3: These are stories or claims written by men who never saw, met, or observed Jesus, writing decades after Jesus died, writing in a language which was not Jesus’ language. This is not good evidence. You would not accept similar evidence for some alleged miracle by Muhammad. You really need to study Bart Ehrman’s work. As far as I can tell, Ehrman is the greatest NT scholar and historian in the world. I have read many of his articles and books and watched many of his YouTube films.
GW3: Besides, if Jesus did believe that God did exist (and it is likely that he did), then he was just mistaken. We now know that God does not exist. This has been proven. All your pontifications are useless since you still have found no error in my Holocaust argument. Until or unless you do, you are just wasting your breath or wasting your typing hands.
GW3: Figuratively, God is dead. Literally, he was never alive or never existed. The concept of God may still have some value, but it does not refer to anything in reality.
This article makes very clear that these accurately verified Biblical dates do not prove that everything in the Bible is true, just as some of the boards or bricks of a house don’t make up the entire structure. However, since the Bible says that “Yahweh” is the “God of truth” (Psalm 31:1,5 NJB), it is reasonable to expect that everything in the book called “the word of God” (1 Thessalonians 1:1) would be true! Since this fact is so doubted and disputed, this website is dedicated to providing evidence in support of the book’s claims. If you don’t want to believe the Bible is “the word of God”, fine! All you have to look forward to as an atheist is eternal death anyway, so the future that your expect for yourself is no different than what the Bible says will happen to those who do not “believe that he exists” (Hebrews 11:6 NJB; 2 Thessalonians 1:8,9).
The “eyewitnesses” Peter refers to (2 Peter 1:16) were “Peter and the two brothers, James and John” (Matthew 17:1 NLT). He says, “We ourselves heard that voice from heaven when we were with him on the holy mountain” (2 Peter 1:18 NLT). Matthew was one of the twelve apostles who traveled with Jesus and heard Peter, James and John’s testimony, Mark was Peter’s writer (Mark 9:1; 1 Peter 5:13), and Luke “carefully investigated everything” and wrote “an accurate account” (Luke 1:3; 9:28). Peter says, “We saw his majestic splendor with our own eyes” (2 Peter 1:16 NLT). This is what “majesty” means, which you questioned.
Regarding the writership of 2 Peter, the early Christians quick to reject pseudo-apostolic texts, and in particular books falsely attributed to Peter, such as The Apocalypse of Peter, The Gospel of Peter, the Acts of Peter, and the Letter of Peter to Philip. 2 Peter was accepted as canonical by Iranaeus, 180; Origen of Alexandria, 230; Eusebius, 320; Cyril of Jerusalem, 348; Athanaseus, 367; Epiphanius of Palestine, 368; Gregory Nazianzus, 370; Philaster383; and Augustine and the third Council of Carthage in 397. The late 3rd century Codex Claromontanus, lists 2 Peter as an accepted Canonical Book, but lists The Apocalypse of Peter as a rejected book. Peter apparently was martyred in the 60’s, so 2 Peter had to be written prior to that.
Even the agnostic Ehrman candidly admits, “I am struck by a certain consistency among otherwise independent witnesses . . . It seems hard to believe that this just happened by way of fluke of storytelling. It seems much more likely that, at least with the traditions involving the empty tomb, we are dealing with something actually rooted in history” (Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene, page 226, by Bart Ehrman).
RT3: The “eyewitnesses” Peter refers to (2 Peter 1:16) were “Peter and the two brothers, James and John” (Matthew 17:1 NLT).
GW3: As I mentioned last time, most scholars do not believe 2 Peter was written by the disciple Peter, so I will accept their scholarship over yours. In addition, there are no eyewitness reports from James and John. At best what the author of 2 Peter presents here is “hearsay” and it would not be allowed in court.
RT3: He says, “We ourselves heard that voice from heaven when we were with him on the holy mountain” (2 Peter 1:18 NLT).
GW3: This was probably written by somebody intentionally writing fiction, or by somebody simply relaying gossip, or by somebody mistaken in his interpretation of what he experienced. Hallucinations, dreams, illusions, and Near Death Experiences sometimes have weird content that is just subjective rather than objective. Another good example of this is Paul’s auditory hallucination of Jesus on the road to Damascus. I have even experienced one – a grief hallucination.
GW3: In modern times loud speakers can present loud voices from “heaven” but this was not possible back in ancient times. Or there is no good evidence that it ever occurred.
RT3: This article makes very clear that these accurately verified Biblical dates do not prove that everything in the Bible is true, just as some of the boards or bricks of a house don’t make up the entire structure.
GW3: That is consistent with what I said.
RT3: However, since the Bible says that “Yahweh” is the “God of truth” (Psalm 31:1,5 NJB), it is reasonable to expect that everything in the book called “the word of God” (1 Thessalonians 1:1) would be true!
GW3: False. There is no good evidence that the Bible was written by, dictated by, authored by, or influenced by God. It was written by men who were often incorrect in what they wrote. You are engaged in “begging the question.”
RT3: Since this fact is so doubted and disputed, this website is dedicated to providing evidence in support of the book’s claims.
GW3: Well, we agree that some of the Bible’s claims are true, e.g. claims about dates and places. But all claims about God are false. We know this since God does not exist.
RT3: If you don’t want to believe the Bible is “the word of God”, fine!
GW3: What I want and what you want are irrelevant. It only matters what is true.
RT3: All you have to look forward to as an atheist is eternal death anyway, so the future that your expect for yourself is no different than what the Bible says will happen to those who do not “believe that he exists” (Hebrews 11:6 NJB; 2 Thessalonians 1:8,9).
GW3: False. I look forward, favorably, to the rest of my life. If you believe that you will have some glorious life in Heaven or later on Earth, you are almost certainly mistaken. The evidence shows that when the brain dies and disintegrates, then personal subjective existence ends. Sorry about that.
RT3: The “eyewitnesses” Peter refers to (2 Peter 1:16) were “Peter and the two brothers, James and John” (Matthew 17:1 NLT). He says, “We ourselves heard that voice from heaven when we were with him on the holy mountain” (2 Peter 1:18 NLT). Matthew was one of the twelve apostles who traveled with Jesus and heard Peter, James and John’s testimony, Mark was Peter’s writer (Mark 9:1; 1 Peter 5:13), and Luke “carefully investigated everything” and wrote “an accurate account” (Luke 1:3; 9:28).
GW3: This is all either fiction, hearsay, or gossip. You have no verified eye-witness reports.
RT3: Peter says, “We saw his majestic splendor with our own eyes” (2 Peter 1:16 NLT). This is what “majesty” means, which you questioned.
GW3: See my earlier explanation of this.
RT3: Regarding the writership of 2 Peter, the early Christians quick to reject pseudo-apostolic texts, and in particular books falsely attributed to Peter, such as The Apocalypse of Peter, The Gospel of Peter, the Acts of Peter, and the Letter of Peter to Philip. 2 Peter was accepted as canonical by Iranaeus, 180; Origen of Alexandria, 230; Eusebius, 320; Cyril of Jerusalem, 348; Athanaseus, 367; Epiphanius of Palestine, 368; Gregory Nazianzus, 370; Philaster383; and Augustine and the third Council of Carthage in 397. The late 3rd century Codex Claromontanus, lists 2 Peter as an accepted Canonical Book, but lists The Apocalypse of Peter as a rejected book. Peter apparently was martyred in the 60’s, so 2 Peter had to be written prior to that.
GW3: I am sticking with what most scholars think about the authorship of 2 Peter – that it was not written by the disciple Peter. You are entitled to believe AGAINST the weight of the evidence and AGAINST expert consensus.
RT3: Even the agnostic Ehrman candidly admits, “I am struck by a certain consistency among otherwise independent witnesses . . . It seems hard to believe that this just happened by way of fluke of storytelling. It seems much more likely that, at least with the traditions involving the empty tomb, we are dealing with something actually rooted in history” (Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene, page 226, by Bart Ehrman).
GW3: First, Ehrman has recently identified himself to be an agnostic atheist. Secondly, in the quote here from Ehrman, he is not talking about the authorship of 2 Peter. Thirdly, Ehrman agrees with you and me that some things in the Bible are probably true. And lastly, in his most recent book Ehrman has concluded that Jesus probably was not placed in a tomb after the crucifixion. So, based on new evidence and more study, he changed his mind on that detail.
“Stop thinking like children . . . but in your thinking be adults”—1 Corinthians 14:20 NIV
“Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth”—Ephesians 4:14 NLT
our ‘consensus of scholars’ is actually a form of provincialism. “Consensus” is not evidence, or proof. It is a majority opinion. Popular opinion is just not an accurate barometer of truth. Pressure to conform to popular opinion is an often used as a common fallacy of reasoning. Truth is true, no matter whether everyone believes it, or no one believes it!
You “cannot prove” your speculations against the Bible (Acts 24:13 NIV).
Your claims that the Bible contains fiction are entirely speculative. You cannot prove any Biblical dates false, nor can you prove the resurrection of Jesus false!
RT4: “Stop thinking like children . . . but in your thinking be adults”—1 Corinthians 14:20 NIV
GW4: I agree. This is what I am doing – thinking like a reasonable adult.
RT4: “Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth”—Ephesians 4:14 NLT
GW4: I agree. We should use our reasoning skills to reject lies, falsehoods, delusions, irrationalities, and moral errors.
RT4: our ‘consensus of scholars’ is actually a form of provincialism.
GW4: That doesn’t matter. There are three groups with different positions on any controversial question or issue: 1) the nonscholars or lay persons, 2) the relevant scholars with a minority opinion, and 3) the relevant scholars with a majority opinion. The third group is more likely to have come to its conclusion on the basis of reason. So, on the question we are discussing, I’m sticking with group #3. I recommend that you do the same.
RT4: “Consensus” is not evidence, or proof. It is a majority opinion.
GW4: I agree. However, the relevant scholars with the majority opinion (especially consensus opinion) are more likely to have reached their conclusion based on evidence, logic, and/or proof. So, I’m going to stick with them in this case.
RT4: Popular opinion is just not an accurate barometer of truth.
GW4: I agree. Popular opinion is equivalent to the conclusion of group #1 which I mentioned earlier.
RT4: Pressure to conform to popular opinion is an often used as a common fallacy of reasoning.
GW4: I agree. I usually don’t conform to popular opinion, certainly not with respect to the issue we are discussing – “Did Peter, the alleged disciple of Jesus, write 2 Peter?” Since I have neither the time nor the motivation to dig into the depth of this issue, I will assent to the relevant scholars who have already done that and accept their consensus. You should too.
RT4: Truth is true, no matter whether everyone believes it, or no one believes it!
GW4: That’s not quite correct. Truth is an accurate description or model of realty. Persons construct these descriptions and models. And therefore, truth depends on persons using reason to construct accurate descriptions or models.
RT4: You “cannot prove” your speculations against the Bible (Acts 24:13 NIV).
GW4: False. I have already proven some of my initial speculations and hypotheses against the Bible. For example, the Bible claims God exists, but I have proven that he doesn’t. Refer to my Holocaust argument in which you have found no error.
RT4: Your claims that the Bible contains fiction are entirely speculative.
GW4: Not “entirely” speculative. That God does not exist is no longer merely speculation; it is a proven fact.
RT4: You cannot prove any Biblical dates false,…
GW4: Straw man. I never claimed that I could prove that all Biblical dates are false. We agree that at least some of them are correct. I’m really not much interested in Bible dates. I’m interested in things like the claimed existence of God, resurrection, atonement, morality, and various miracles.
RT4: nor can you prove the resurrection of Jesus false!
GW4: Well first, the good news is that I don’t need to prove that the alleged resurrection of Jesus is false. The burden of proof is on you to show that it is true. We are safe to take the default position – that the resurrection of any person, including Jesus, would be a super-improbable event. Just on its own merits, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus just is not good enough to confirm the hypothesis. But secondly, doesn’t the truth of the resurrection of Jesus depend on the truth of the existence of God? Yes, I think it does. So, since God does not exist, Jesus was never resurrected! There was nobody to resurrect him. Bazinga!
You admit that you do not want to invest the time it would to investigate for yourself, nor do you have the interest in so doing, whether the apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter, so instead, you assent to the opinion of the majority of those viewed as scholars. The same thing is true regarding many of the other issues we’ve been discussing. Jesus said that many would have this type of attitude (Matthew 13:3-7). They wouldn’t be interested in going into any real depth on these issues. Your choice. No coercion on God’s part. He’s made the offer (Deuteronomy 30:19,20). On the other those who “searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out” (1 Peter 1:10,11 NIV) are presented as good examples of those who take the time to search for themselves.
Your statement about truth is false. Remember the consensus of “experts” in the past viewed the earth as the center of the solar system and the universe? The truth was contrary to their thinking, and did not depend on their viewpoint, did it?
RT5: You admit that you do not want to invest the time it would to investigate for yourself, nor do you have the interest in so doing, whether the apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter,…
GW5: That’s right! It’s a rather minor issue not worth my time or energy. Even if the consensus of scholars were to somehow confirm that the author of 2 Peter was the disciple Peter, that doesn’t get you very far – one “eye witness” reporting one miracle. I presented to you several naturalistic explanations which are all more likely to be true than “a miracle occurred.”
RT5: so instead, you assent to the opinion of the majority of those viewed as scholars.
GW5: Yes, that is the second best way to make a judgement – identify the relevant experts and see what is the consensus or majority view of them. It’s a perfectly reasonable thing to do, when the issue is not a major one and/or you don’t have the time or energy to pursue it in depth.
RT5: The same thing is true regarding many of the other issues we’ve been discussing.
GW5: Some of them, but not most. The alleged existence of God and occurrence of Jesus’ resurrection are far more important than whether Peter wrote 2 Peter.
RT5: Jesus said that many would have this type of attitude (Matthew 13:3-7). They wouldn’t be interested in going into any real depth on these issues.
GW5: So what? That would not be surprising at all. It’s a psychological strategy called “inoculation.”
RT5: Your choice. No coercion on God’s part.
GW5: God does not exist, and so God does not coerce. He doesn’t do anything!
RT5: He’s made the offer (Deuteronomy 30:19,20).
GW5: False. There is no good evidence that God has ever communicated with any human being. We know the form which God’s communication would take with us, if he did exist. I’ve described this to you many times. And then there is that small point to keep in the back or your mind – God does not even exist.
RT5: On the other those who “searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out” (1 Peter 1:10,11 NIV) are presented as good examples of those who take the time to search for themselves.
GW5: Well, if you and I were living in the period three years before and three years after the death of Jesus, then it would make good sense for you and I to “search intently with the greatest care” to determine who this dude Jesus was and whether any of the miracle rumors were true. But that is not possible now. The documentation is horrible. There are no recordings or remnants of miracles. And you still haven’t been able to summon either God or Jesus to meet with us and discuss these issues. There’s nothing there.
RT5: Your statement about truth is false.
GW5: False. If you are going to challenge a statement of mine, then quote it. Don’t be ambiguous or wishy washy.
RT5: Remember the consensus of “experts” in the past viewed the earth as the center of the solar system and the universe?
GW5: And that was a reasonable inference at the time, given the evidence and methods they had. Times changed. The evidence and methods changed. And their once reasonable inference became unreasonable. That’s the way investigation, research, and enlightenment works. Both lay persons and experts once thought God existed, but this is a new day. We now know better. The consensus of the current experts on this matter, i.e. the scientists and the philosophers, is either that there is insufficient evidence that God exists or sufficient evidence that he doesn’t. The majority don’t believe in God. And the percentage who do is decreasing each year.
RT5: The truth was contrary to their thinking, and did not depend on their viewpoint, did it?
GW5: As I said last time, “truth” is the current best model or description of reality and it comes from applying reason to all the relevant current evidence. Truth depends on somebody’s viewpoint! Whose? Reasonable people thinking reasonably.
“God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish”—1 Corinthians 1:20 NLT
“God has shown up human wisdom as folly”—1 Corinthians 1:20 NJB
“He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness”—1 Corinthians 3:19 NLT
You’re confused about what truth is. Truth DOES NOT depend on anyone’s viewpoint, be they “experts” or otherwise! When the “experts” of the time claimed the earth was the center of the universe, their claim was not true, contrary to your assertion that it was. Their claim was just as false then as it is today. Truth is not dependent on the views or opinions of people.
Hundreds of years ago, “experts” thought the earth was flat. The Bible said it was round 2,700 years ago (Isaiah 40:22). Hundreds of years ago, “experts” thought the earth was supported by gigantic elephants or turtles. The Bible said, “God . . . hangs the earth on nothing” (Job 26:7 NLT) 3,500 years ago. Claims the earth was flat and was supported by animals were just as false then as they are today.
GW6: False. I subscribe to what philosophers or epistemology describe as the “correspondence theory of truth.” According to this view truth is an accurate or correct description or model of reality. If you disagree, present your theory of truth.
RT6: When the “experts” of the time claimed the earth was the center of the universe, their claim was not true, contrary to your assertion that it was. Their claim was just as false then as it is today.
GW6: Although not true, their belief was consistent with the evidence they had at the time. Their collection of relevant evidence was very limited.
RT6: Truth is not dependent on the views or opinions of people.
GW6: False. “Our sun is at the center of our solar system” is a truth. It started as a view, opinion, or hypothesis of a person, and then it was confirmed, becoming a fact or truth. Can you now see the dependence?
RT6: Hundreds of years ago, “experts” thought the earth was flat. The Bible said it was round 2,700 years ago (Isaiah 40:22). Hundreds of years ago, “experts” thought the earth was supported by gigantic elephants or turtles. The Bible said, “God . . . hangs the earth on nothing” (Job 26:7 NLT) 3,500 years ago. Claims the earth was flat and was supported by animals were just as false then as they are today.
GW6: So what? Human persons are fallible. They can make mistakes. They can lack evidence. They can have false beliefs. For example, you have a false belief that God exists. We now know the truth – God does not exist, as my Holocaust argument shows.
“They are hopelessly confused”—Ephesians 4:17 NLT
You’re still confused as to what truth actually is. The sun being at the center of the solar system DID NOT BECOME A TRUTh when humans discovered it. This fact has been true for millions of years prior to human existence. Truth is NOT DEPENDENT ON HUMAN REASONING OR KNOWLEDGE, as you claim.
RT7″ “They are hopelessly confused”—Ephesians 4:17 NLT
GW7: Yes, all the religious people are hopelessly confused. Why? Because they rely on different writings by different men all of whom believe they know the nature, wants, and commands of God. If God did exist, there wouldn’t be all this hopeless confusion. Why? Because God would communicate directly with people in the way I described.
If God did exist, because of his nature (especially because he would be all-powerful and perfectly moral) he would communicate with human persons (and any other persons in the cosmos) ONLY in the following manner:
1. The revelations would be frequent and/or regular. At a minimum God would deliver a revelation at least once every 15 years which is considered a “generation” in the human sense.
2. In a revelation God would identify himself as “God,” but he would appear as a kind middle-aged woman to help people feel comfortable.
3. God would perform at least three miracles in order to verify his identity.
4. God would give morally justified reasons for allowing or causing at least three horrible harms in the cosmos (or on Earth) in order to verify his identity.
5. God would present his moral code and the consequences for compliance and noncompliance.
6. God would answer questions from his audience, at least ten questions.
7. The revelation would be like a press conference and would last just 2-3 hours so that listeners would maintain interest and not become bored or drowsy.
8. God would present orally; he would speak. But at the end of his speech he would distribute printed or digital copies of his speech to everyone who wanted a copy.
9. God would speak in one language, the most popular language in the cosmos, whatever that would be, but God would ensure that everyone heard his speech in their native or primary language.
10. God’s speech would be clear, concise, and easy to understand.
11. God’s communication would be unambiguous, unequivocal, consistent, precise, specific, and rational. (If necessary, God would enhance some persons’ intelligence or ability to comprehend.)
12. God would speak to all persons in the cosmos at the same time. He would speak to theists, atheists, agnostics, polytheists, indeed all persons. Nobody would be left behind.
13. God’s communication would be objective, not subjective. All persons would see and hear God at the same time.
14. God’s speech would be simulcast over all TV, radio, internet, and streaming media.
15. God would not use intermediaries, assistants, messengers, or prophets. He would always do his own work – his own communication. He would know that this would reduce the probability of confusion, error, mistakes, and disagreement to zero.
RT7: You’re still confused as to what truth actually is.
GW7: False. I subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth. You still have not presented your theory of truth.
RT7: The sun being at the center of the solar system DID NOT BECOME A TRUTh when humans discovered it. This fact has been true for millions of years prior to human existence. Truth is NOT DEPENDENT ON HUMAN REASONING OR KNOWLEDGE, as you claim.
GW7: Truth according to whom? There is no truth independent of somebody’s observation and thinking. Truth is a description or model. Truth consists of particular thoughts about reality. Reality, including the objects and processes of reality, would all exist without any persons, but truth does not.
GW7: When you say “The sun is at the center of our solar system” you, a person, are presenting a description or model about reality, and that description/model happens to be a truth. It has an accurate correspondence with reality.
GW7: You’ve made the same kind of mistake in the past when you spoke of natural laws as if they are processes with causal powers. They aren’t. Natural laws are descriptions or models of processes in the universe.
“Do you know the laws of the universe? Can you set them to regulate the earth?”—Job 38:33 NLT
“My laws that govern day and night, earth and sky”—Jeremiah 33:25 NLT
“He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness”—1 Corinthians 3:19 NLT
Your “correspondence theory of truth” is simply circular reasoning.
The mathematical principles that the universe operates on were true prior to human discovery of them. The same is true regarding “the laws of the universe”, such as gravity, motion and E=MC2. The “God” who “created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1) created these natural laws prior to the physical creation.
RT8: “Do you know the laws of the universe? Can you set them to regulate the earth?”—Job 38:33 NLT
GW8: Yes, I know some of the laws of the universe, but not all of them, of course. There is no good evidence, however, that ANYBODY can SET the laws to regulate the earth. This is why the existence of any god is super-improbable. Furthermore, we know that one particular god, i.e. God, does not exist.
RT8: “My laws that govern day and night, earth and sky”—Jeremiah 33:25 NLT
GW8: Some human being wrote this verse and “put words into the mouth” of a god. Is there any evidence that ANY PERSON has ever devised laws of the universe? NO!
RT8: “He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness”—1 Corinthians 3:19 NLT
GW8: Nobody has trapped me in cleverness. I am clever to some degree because of my genetics and my good education. Some people have not been as fortunate as I have been.
RT8: Your “correspondence theory of truth” is simply circular reasoning.
GW8: Identify the circle which you think is there. I don’t think you can.
GW8: There is a reality which appears to be eternal. This reality existed before any human persons existed. It has an orderliness inherent to it. We humans came along through evolution. With our big brains we make descriptions and models of the reality – what exists, what has happened, and what are the orderly patterns in reality. That’s just what we do. Our descriptions and models are usually in the form of words, sentences, and conclusions, but can also be in the form of diagrams, graphs, and equations. So, what is a truth? A truth is a description or model which closely or accurately CORRESPONDS to reality. What is a falsehood? A falsehood is a description or model which does NOT CORRESPOND to reality or corresponds very poorly to it. In a nutshell, that is the CORRESPONDENCE THEORY of the truth. If you think you have a better idea of truth, then present it and then we can debate it.
RT8: The mathematical principles that the universe operates on were true prior to human discovery of them.
GW8: False. The universe has orderly or regular processes. We use mathematics to describe this orderliness. Math doesn’t cause or govern anything.
RT8: The same is true regarding “the laws of the universe”, such as gravity, motion and E=MC2.
GW8: The “laws of the universe” are descriptions or models of the regularities or orderliness of the universe. The laws of the universe are essentially THOUGHTS or ABSTRACTIONS ABOUT reality. They are not reality itself.
RT8: The “God” who “created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1) created these natural laws prior to the physical creation.
GW8: False. The concept of God does not correspond to anything existing in reality. God is not a part of reality. I have proven this with my Holocaust argument, in which you have found no error. Until you or somebody else finds an error in this argument, NOBODY should believe that God exists. Why are religions in decline? Part of the reason is that believers are either unable to find errors in the various arguments against the existence of God or they try to find errors and stumble.
GW8: I’ll give you another chance: Please tell us what morally justified reason God would have to ALLOW the Holocaust, if he did exist. Be specific. Why can’t you answer this question? Because there is no such reason. If God did exist, wouldn’t he give you the answer? Yes he would, but unfortunately for you and all of us, he does not exist.
“The laws of the universe” (Job 38:33 NLT) are not just abstract ideas or descriptions, as you assert. Hold a book in your outstretched hand, and then release your grip on it. Which way does it go? Not up, not sideways, but downward until it hits the floor or ground, for example. Why? Because the law of gravity works. It works the same way all over the universe. So does the speed of light. It’s constant all over the universe. So does the proton-electro mass ratio work the same way all over the universe.
Your reasoning is flawed. You’re in denial of reality.
RT9: “The laws of the universe” (Job 38:33 NLT) are not just abstract ideas or descriptions, as you assert.
GW9: Yes, they are! They are representations of what exists in reality.
RT9: Hold a book in your outstretched hand, and then release your grip on it. Which way does it go? Not up, not sideways, but downward until it hits the floor or ground, for example. Why? Because the law of gravity works.
GW9: The book goes down towards the center of the Earth. This is a natural process in reality. The “law of gravity” is a description or model of that process.
RT9: It works the same way all over the universe. So does the speed of light. It’s constant all over the universe.
GW9: Yes, just as I explained to you.
RT9: So does the proton-electro mass ratio work the same way all over the universe.
GW9: Yes, just as I explained to you. You are actually confusing three things – 1) the process in reality, 2) our thoughts about or abstractions of the process, and 3) our description or model of the process. The latter is the “law.”
RT9: Your reasoning is flawed.
GW9: False. My reasoning is correct. You have presented no alternative explanation of truth. I have presented to you the most common and accepted philosophical explanation of truth. Here is a Wikipedia article which might help you better understand The Correspondence Theory of Truth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth
RT9: You’re in denial of reality.
GW9: False. You are in denial of reality. You believe that God belongs to reality, when he doesn’t. He is not real. He does not exist. How do I know this? From the Holocaust argument in which you have found no error. As I said last time, until you or somebody finds, presents, and explains an error in the argument, NOBODY should believe that God exists. If they do, they do so not thru reason, but only thru faith. It’s basically wishful thinking transmuted into belief. Like you I wish that God did exist, but unlike you I don’t believe he does. Why? Because I know better.
GW9: I’ll give you another chance: Please tell us what morally justified reason God would have to ALLOW the Holocaust, if he did exist. Be specific. Why can’t you answer this question? Because there is no such reason. If God did exist, wouldn’t he give you the answer? Yes he would, but unfortunately for you and all of us, he does not exist! Bazinga!
“Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking”—Colossians 2:8 NLT
You need to carefully read the article yourself! The last sentence in the Wikipedia article you referenced states, “the argument [The Corespondence Theory of Truth} is inescapably circular.”
In other words, The Correspondence Theory of Truth is nothing more than ‘high-sounding nonsense”!!!
RT10: “Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking”—Colossians 2:8 NLT
GW10: I agree with what this author wrote here. Christianity is one of those “empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense.” For example, there is one Bible story in which the character God commands the character Abraham to kill his own son Isaac and sacrifice him to God. This is ludicrous. If God did exist, he would never do this. It would be immoral and God would not be immoral. There are over a hundred nonsensical stories like this in the Bible. To ancient men these stories made sense, but we now see them for what they are – nonsense.
RT10: You need to carefully read the article yourself! The last sentence in the Wikipedia article you referenced states, “the argument [The Corespondence Theory of Truth} is inescapably circular.”
GW10: Oh, that is just in the “Objections” section of the article. So what? There are some objections to the most accepted theories in philosophy. Like you, the author does not demonstrate circularity. In fact I demonstrated to you the linearity of the idea which goes like this: regularities in the cosmos lead to abstractions or thoughts about those regularities which lead to descriptions or models about them. No circle there.
GW10: Didn’t you read the opening sentence? It states “In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.” This corresponds very nicely to what I told you.
RT10: In other words, The Correspondence Theory of Truth is nothing more than ‘high-sounding nonsense”!!!
GW10: False. It is the theory of truth endorsed by the consensus of relevant experts, in this case philosophers of epistemology. As you reject the consensus of experts when it comes to the authorship of 2 Peter, you also reject the consensus of experts when it comes to the theory of truth. And you still have not presented any alternative reasonable theory of truth.
GW10: The concept of God, presented in the standard definition (see my Holocaust argument) does NOT CORRESPOND to anything in reality. God does not exist! Duh.
GW10: How many chances have I given you? I’ll give you another chance: Please tell us what morally justified reason God would have to ALLOW the Holocaust, if he did exist. Be specific. Why can’t you answer this question? Because there is no such reason. If God did exist, wouldn’t he give you the answer? Yes he would, but unfortunately for you and all of us, he does not exist.
“Abraham . . . was ready to offer his only son . . . He reasoned that God was able to raise even from the dead, he received Isaac back as a symbol” (Hebrews 11:17,19 NAB). He DID NOT KILL HIS SON!!! God has commanded no one else to kill their child. Just the opposite, in fact, we read, “. . . to sacrifice their sons and daughters by fire, something I never considered or commanded” (Jeremiah 7:31 NAB).
The objections to the “Correspondence Theory of Truth” mentioned in the Wikipedia article you referenced are true. The theory is indeed “inescapably circular” “high-sounding nonsense” (Colossians 2:8 NLT). Thinking people do well to “avoid profane babbling and the absurdities of so-called knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20 NAB).
RT11: “Abraham . . . was ready to his only son . . . He reasoned that God was able to raise even from the dead, he he received Isaac back as a symbol” (Hebrews 11:17,19 NAB). He DID NOT KILL HIS SON!!!
GW11: You garbled the first part of that. But anyway, you are missing the whole point. In the story the character God commanded Abraham to kill his own son. That is immoral in itself, whether or not Abraham did it. This is how we know either 1) The Bible is not the word of God, or 2) God does not exist. Take your pick.
RT11: God has commanded no one else to kill their child.
GW11: So, you are agreeing with me! The character God commanded the character Abraham to kill his son! Just what I thought.
RT11: Just the opposite, in fact, we read, “. . . to sacrifice their sons and daughters by fire, something I never considered or commanded” (Jeremiah 7:31 NAB).
GW11: And then in the NT, we are told that God arranged for his own son to be tortured and murdered. God would never do this, if he existed. How could anyone ever believe this nonsense! How could you ever believe it? The Bible is a farce.
RT11: The objections to the the “Correspondence Theory of Truth” mentioned in the Wikipedia article you referenced are true. The theory is indeed “inescapably circular” “high-sounding nonsense” (Colossians 2:8 NLT).
GW11: You have failed to prove these objections. You are just parroting somebody else’s minority view. And you have presented no alternative theory of truth.
RT11: Thinking people do well to “avoid profane babbling and the absurdities of so-called knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20 NAB).
GW11: Yes, people should reject the assumed “knowledge” that God exists. I have proven with my Holocaust argument that he does not exist, and neither you nor anyone else has found an error. Bazinga!
You claim the moral evil of the Holocaust disproves, or is incompatible with, the existence of God.
The logic of your Holocaust argument is self-defeating because objective moral arguments are dependent on the existence of God to have any real meaning. The conclusion (God doesn’t exist) denies the source of moral objectivity, which makes the argument hypothetically impossible. Your argument thus implodes on itself and illustrates the inconsistency of the atheistic worldview.
For atheists, who deny the existence of God, there are two that remain as to how to view human actions, including evils, such as the Holocaust. (1) They are simply expressions of personal taste; or (2) They are byproducts of sociobiological evolution and conditioning.
It is, therefore, quite understandable why the Bible says, “Only fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God”‘” (Psalm 14:1 NLT).
RT12:You claim the moral evil of the Holocaust disproves, or is incompatible with, the existence of God.
GW12: As I have said, the concept of “evil” is ambiguous and obsolete. I don’t use it anymore, and my argument makes no mention of it. However, the horrible harm of the Holocaust is certainly incompatible with the existence of God. I have shown why. If you disagree, then prove how the two are compatible.
RT12: The logic of your Holocaust argument is self-defeating because objective moral arguments are dependent on the existence of God to have any real meaning.
GW12: False. Correct Universal Ethics (CUE) is one objective moral code and it is independent of the existence of any god, including God. It is derived from reason and compassion.
RT12: The conclusion (God doesn’t exist) denies the source of moral objectivity, which makes the argument hypothetically impossible.
GW12: False again. The source of CUE is reason and compassion, no god required. I once attended a meeting, mostly of Christians, at FSU, and there were about 40 students present at the meeting. I asked “How many of you know murder is wrong? Raise your hand.” All of them raised their hands. Then I asked “How many of you think the existence of God is necessary to know murder is wrong? Raise your hand.” Nobody raised their hand! There is a proper code of ethics which does not require the existence of any god. In fact, we may use this code to judge the character of hypothetical gods or persons already known to exist.
GW12: In the history of humankind, humans in the hunter-gatherer culture and era were developing moral codes even before they were inventing god concepts. Many experts speculate that the first codes were designed to govern how the tribe shared the meat and other food procured by the tribe persons who hunted and gathered.
GW12: What are the characteristics of a good moral code? Get back to me on that.
GW12: What is the primary and correct moral rule on prevention of harm? Get back to me on that.
RT12: Your argument thus implodes on itself and illustrates the inconsistency of the atheistic worldview.
GW12: False. The argument and its conclusion are correct. So far, you have found no error in it. You won’t. You can’t. You are just spinning your wheels in the mud.
RT12: For atheists, who deny the existence of God, there are two that remain as to how to view human actions, including evils, such as the Holocaust.
GW12: I don’t use the concept of evil. It is ambiguous and obsolete. The Holocaust was a horrible harm primarily caused by human persons, i.e. the Nazis.
RT12: (1) They simply expressions of personal taste; or
GW12: False. Take this moral rule: “Any person X should not enslave any other person Y.” You think that is a matter of personal taste? Absolutely not! That is a correct moral rule.
RT12: (2) They are byproducts of sociobiological evolution and conditioning.
GW12: That is partly true. However, some moral rules are correct and some are incorrect. I gave you an example above of a correct moral rule. Here is an example of an incorrect moral rule: “Any person X should steal the property of any other person Y, if X is confident he can get away with it.”
RT12: It is, therefore, quite understandable why the Bible says, “Only fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God”‘” (Psalm 14:1 NLT).
GW12: Yes, the wise people say aloud and publicly “There is no God.” We now know this to be true. We don’t need to keep quiet any longer, at least not in this country and in most of Europe. My Holocaust argument and other arguments prove that God does not exist. You still have found no error. You can’t, and you won’t.
The only reason that humans have a sense of right and wrong is that God wrote into their DNA:
“When the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them”—Romans 2:14,15 NAB
This fact has been demonstrated since mankind’s beginning, when there was no formal law against murder. Cain’s attitude after his murder of Abel reflects the fact that he knew it was bad (Genesis 4:4-14).
Without God, there is no objective standard of right and wrong. This is seen in more recent times with the conflicting views of the US invasions of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Atheists have no universally agreed upon objective moral standard, so they have to borrow from God’s standard. This is why God calls atheists “fools” (Psalm 14:1 NLT). In reality, atheists are only fooling themselves.
RT13: The only reason that humans have a sense of right and wrong is that God wrote into their DNA:
GW13: False. It is not “the only reason.” In fact, it is not even one reason. God does not exist, and so God does not “write” or design anything. How do we know this? We know that he does not exist from my Holocaust argument and other similar arguments, in which you have found no errors.
GW13: However, we do have moral instincts or sentiments. These are the result of evolution. However, they should not be automatically trusted. In the moral sphere, we should rely on Correct Universal Ethics, devised through reason and compassion.
RT13: “When the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They sho that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them”—Romans 2:14,15 NAB
GW13: Moral instincts, sentiments, and conscience are real things. We know what they are and where they come from and it is not from God. We know that God does not exist!
RT13: This fact has been demonstrated since mankind’s beginning, when there was no formal law against murder.
GW13: Yes, moral instincts, sentiments, and conscience all probably existed BEFORE there were moral rules and certainly before there were laws. I agree.
RT13: Cain’s attitude after his murder of Abel reflects the fact that he knew it was bad (Genesis 4:4-14).
GW13: This story is just fiction, but someone like Cain may have had guilty feelings after he killed his brother. So what? Moral instincts and moral rules do not come from God. We know this.
RT13: Without God, there is no objective standard of right and wrong.
GW13: Of course there is! “Any person X should not enslave any person Y” is objectively correct, even though God does not exist! If you think this moral rule is not objectively correct without any god, then present your case.
RT13: This is seen in more recent times with the conflicting views of the US invasions of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
GW13: The action of the US in each of those conflicts must be examined separately to determine if it was morally correct or incorrect. But in every case there is an objective fact of the matter. There is no doubt that Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine was objectively morally wrong. If you disagree, then present your case. Would you like to defend Putin’s action?
RT13: Atheists have no universally agreed upon objective moral standard, so they have to borrow from God’s standard.
GW13: God doesn’t exist, so he doesn’t have a standard! There is a Correct Universal Ethics, even though all atheists and all theists are not yet on board with it. Both atheists like Sam Harris and fundamentalist Christians like William Lane Craig believe in objective morality. CUE is just one version of objective morality, and it was devised without any belief in any god.
RT13: This is why God calls atheists “fools” (Psalm 14:1 NLT).
GW13: God doesn’t exist and so he doesn’t make calls or do anything! I don’t use the NLT; I use the NIV. Also, the words of Psalm 14:1 are not attributed to God by the author.
RT13: In reality, atheists are only fooling themselves.
GW13: Atheists are just people who do not believe in the existence of any gods. You are claiming they believe what they don’t believe. That is either ignorant or dishonest on your part. You may legitimately claim that atheists are mistaken, but you may not legitimately claim that atheists are fooling themselves.
GW13: I’ll try to explain here the First Way of the Holocaust argument to you in simple language. Either God exists or he does not. This is a true dichotomy. There is a fact of the matter. So, which is it? The Holocaust did occur. It was a real event. It was a horrible harm, committed mainly by the Nazis. If God did exist, he would have either prevented or allowed the Holocaust. This is another true dichotomy. There is a fact of the matter. So, which is it? If God did exist, he would have prevented the Holocaust. This is the fact of the matter. Why? Because if anybody allowed the Holocaust to occur, who was able to prevent it, then that person would be acting immorally. However, by definition God would be perfectly moral and so he would never act immorally. Therefore, if God did exist, there is no way he would have allowed the Holocaust. He would have prevented it. Isn’t this obvious? It is obvious to me. Since I am a fallible human being, maybe there is an error in my reasoning. I don’t think there is, but that is still a possibility. This is why I ask everyone to seek an error and present it if they find one. So far, however, probably a hundred persons have looked at the argument and found no error or if they found one they didn’t present it. So for now, it is reasonable to assume by default that there is no error, that if God did exist he would have prevented the Holocaust, and that God does not exist. It’s really that simple. What is it that you don’t understand? Which part of it don’t you accept? What error, if any, do you think you have found? Why are you silent about this argument? Well, I believe you have not found an error and never will. You are silent because you don’t wish to admit hapless state in public. If you admitted it, then you would need to revise your worldview. Being a creature of habit, you are reluctant to do that. And so you sit with the status quo.
God warned the first two humans of the dire consequences of disobedience (Genesis 2:15-17). They disobeyed (Genesis 3:1-6), God announced his long-term remedy to the problem (Genesis 3:15), and explained the resultant consequences of their actions (Genesis 3:16). This has proven true over the millennia, and the Holocaust is just one example.
Your CUE is not enforceable, nor is law, anywhere in the world. You admit not all atheists agree with it. It’s doubtful atheist Putin does, or that atheists Mao, or Pol Pot, Stalin did.
God will right all wrongs eventually so that even the thought of them will be erased (Isaiah 65:17; Revelation 21:1-4).
Psalm 14 was written by David, as were many of the Psalms, but God is the actual author of the Bible’s content. Humans were, in a sense, his secretaries. “The Spirit of the LORD speaks through me” 2 Samuel 23:2 NLT), David wrote. Psalm 14 presents the world as consisting of two types of people, “fools” (1-3), and “those who obey him [God]” (4-6) (Psalm 14:1,5 NLT).
If you wish to exclusively use the NIV, that’s fine. Your choice. We use, and will continue to use, various Bible translations on this website, and the NIV is just one of them.
RT14: God warned the first two humans of the dire consequences of disobedience (Genesis 2:15-17). They disobeyed (Genesis 3:1-6), God announced his long-term remedy to the problem (Genesis 3:15), and explained the resultant consequences of their actions (Genesis 3:16). This has proven true over the millennia, and the Holocaust is just one example.
GW14: The Adam and Eve story is just fiction. Some ancient guy invented the story and presented it as if it were true. The story is fabricated and actually describes what God would not do, if he did exist. At the end of this post I will give my complete analysis of the Story of Adam and Eve. Stay tuned.
GW14: You are implying not only that God exists but also that he punished 6-9 million Jews in the 1930s and 1940s in Europe on account of the disobedience of Adam and Eve. That is preposterous! God would never do that. If you think so, then your moral code is severely deficient.
RT14: Your CUE is not enforceable,…
GW14: Straw man there. I never claimed that it is enforceable. However, your claim is false anyway. CUE would be enforceable and would be enforced to varying degrees in different times and places. It would be better enforced if we had a true world government. That would be ideal.
RT14: nor is law, anywhere in the world.
GW14: Laws are enforced everyday around the world. What are you talking about?
RT14: You admit not all atheists agree with it.
GW14: Of course all atheists don’t agree with it. So what? All theists don’t agree with all the tenets of Christianity either. All theists, atheists, and everybody else would be in agreement about the moral code. Why? Because God would communicate with humanity in the way I have described to you many times, and people would embrace the moral code presented by God.
RT14: It’s doubtful atheist Putin does, or that atheists Mao, or Pol Pot, Stalin did.
GW14: It is hard to tell which of these men were atheists, if any. But that doesn’t matter. Everyone should agree with CUE, even these men and even you. Even God would agree with it, if he existed.
RT14: God will right all wrongs eventually so that even the thought of them will be erased (Isaiah 65:17; Revelation 21:1-4).
GW14: You are missing a major point. If God did exist, he would PREVENT all major wrongs in this life! He wouldn’t allow them to occur and then settle the score later. That would be immoral, and if God did exist he would be perfectly moral.
GW14: Imagine God saying this during the Holocaust: “Jews, you are my chosen people, but I am going to allow this Holocaust to occur and then settle the score sheet later. Hold your heads high and persevere through the suffering. Sure, I could prevent it. After all, I am all-powerful, but I am just going to let it happen. Remember that Adam and Eve disobeyed me in the Garden of Eden and so you guys and gals deserve to suffer some because of their disobedience. Sorry, but that’s just going to be the way I operate here, like or not.” No, Ross, although you imply that God would act this way, you are completely mistaken. There is something seriously wrong with your moral code.
GW14: What is the proper moral rule regarding prevention of harm? Ponder that and get back to me.
RT14: Psalm 14 was written by David, as were many of the Psalms, but God is the actual author of the Bible’s content. Humans were, in a sense, his secretaries. “
GW14: False. There is no good evidence that God wrote, dictated, or inspired any book of the Bible, or the Quran. In fact, we know that God does not exist. See the Holocaust argument.
RT14: The Spirit of the LORD speaks through me” 2 Samuel 23:2 NLT), David wrote.
GW14: David was mistaken for the reasons I have already given.
RT14: Psalm 14 presents the world as consisting of two types of people, “fools” (1-3), and “those who obey him [God]” (4-6) (Psalm 14:1,5 NLT).
GW14: The people of the world (the adults at least) can be classified into two groups – those who use reason vs. those who use faith. Those who use reason have correctly concluded that God does not exist. But most of those who use faith have incorrectly concluded that God does exist. Follow the evidence.
RT14: If you wish to exclusively use the NIV, that’s fine. Your choice.
GW14: Yes, I use the NIV because Bart Ehrman and most of the Biblical scholars and apologists use it.
RT14: We use, and will continue to use, various Bible translations on this website, and the NIV is just one of them.
GW14: You are entitled to make that mistake.
GW14: Ok, here is my analysis of the Story of Adam and Eve:
The Story of Adam and Eve; The Story of the Fall; The Story of the Garden of Eden: 5-3-2023.
The following quotes are from Genesis 2 NIV:
“15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 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.’”
GW: If God did exist, he would never prohibit human beings from eating fruit. But maybe this fruit is just metaphorical. Maybe eating this fruit represents acquiring knowledge through investigation. No way! If God did exist, he would not prohibit human beings from acquiring knowledge. That would be immoral, and God would be perfectly moral. Instead, he would encourage them to do so.
GW: Also, even if God did prohibit humans from acquiring knowledge, he would not punish them with death if they disobeyed. That would be unjust, too harsh. God would not be unjust, but would be perfectly moral. Instead, God might block Adam and Eve from the Garden for a couple of weeks for their disobedience.
GW: Without clear and lengthy explanation, Adam and Eve would not have known what death meant. The narrative does not say that God gave them this explanation. In addition, although God says that the couple will certainly die, he doesn’t say when this will happen. If God did exist, he would not be so vague in his instructions. Instead, he would be clear and precise.
The following quotes are from Genesis 3 NIV:
“3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, ‘Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
GW: Well, serpents don’t speak, but maybe the serpent just represents Satan. Let’s assume that for now. But, if God did exist, he would not create Satan or create any angel who would become Satan. God would not place an unnecessary burden on Adam and Eve – somebody who tempted them to do disobey God. That would be immoral, and God would be perfectly moral instead.
“2 The woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 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.’”
GW: Although it is still not perfectly clear, this verse 3 implies that Eve understood that death would immediately occur if she or Adam even touched the fruit. If God did exist, again his instruction would be clear and precise.
“6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.”
GW: Gaining wisdom is a good thing. God would never command human beings not to acquire wisdom and he would never punish them for doing so. That would be immoral, and God would be perfectly moral.
“9 But the Lord God called to the man, ‘Where are you?’”
GW: This would be a dumb question. God would not ask it since he would be all-knowing.
“11 And he [God] said, ‘Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?’”
GW: Another one of those dumb questions which God would never ask, if he existed.
“16 To the woman he said, ‘I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.’”
GW: This punishment is unjust and too harsh, even for one woman – Eve, but also for Eve’s descendants. This would be immoral, and if he existed, God would not do it since he would be perfectly moral.
“17 To Adam he said, ‘Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
‘Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.’”
GW: This punishment is unjust and too harsh, even for one man – Adam, but also for Adam’s descendants. This would be immoral, and if he existed, God would not do it since he would be perfectly moral.
GW: Also, if God did exist, he would not give different and unequal punishments to Eve and Adam for the same disobedience. That would be unfair, unjust, and immoral. But if he did exist, God would be perfectly moral.
“22 And the Lord God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.’ 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.’”
GW: These verses imply that prior to disobedience Adam and Eve were already mortal, i.e. they would succumb to death. And so, after disobedience, God piles on an additional punishment – making it impossible for them to gain immortality. This would be unjust and immoral, and if God did exist, he would be perfectly moral. What would be moral actions for God? One would be that he made Adam, Eve, and their descendants immortal before the disobedience and never took that away. Another would be that he made Adam, Eve, and their descendants mortal before the disobedience but required that they earn immortality through proper behavior. Neither of these options is mentioned in Genesis, but one of them would be, if God did exist.
We may rationally conclude from our analysis of Genesis 2 and 3 NIV that:
1. Genesis cannot be the word of God in any way. It has errors, both factual and moral. God would never do the things which the author attributes to God.
2. The author of Genesis probably sincerely expressed his opinions about what God would do, but he was mistaken. We have learned so much more about the cosmos and morality since the time Genesis was written.
3. God does not exist. If he did exist, he would never allow an author to report falsehoods about him, as are reported in Genesis.
The answer to your question of why God allowed the Holocaust to occur was proven to you once again, and, once again, you reject it by claiming that God would not allow it if he existed. The problem is, you can’t prove that.
Then you claim that Genesis 2 and 3 are fiction, but you cannot prove it. Further compounding your problem is the fact that where “the Garden of Eden” was located was in the area where “the Tigris” and “the Euphrates” rivers are located, the very area that is often called by scientists “the cradle of civilization.” Scientists have also discovered that all humans are essentially related, very similar to the fact that “Adam–named his wife Eve, because she would be the mother of all who live” (Genesis 3:20 NLT).
You say you use the NIV exclusively “because Bart Ehrman and most Biblical scholars use it.” You’re obviously unaware that Bible scholars who read and write in English use a variety of English Bible translations. There is no consensus that the NIV is the best to use.
RT15: The answer to your question of why God allowed the Holocaust to occur was proven to you once again, and, once again, you reject it by claiming that God would not allow it if he existed. The problem is, you can’t prove that.
GW15: The question is not “Why did God allow the Holocaust?” Instead, the two key questions are “Would God allow the Holocaust, if he did exist? If so, what would be his reason?” So, your comment here amounts to “begging the question.”
GW15: I already have proven that if God did exist, he would not allow the Holocaust. It is simple. Any person who is all-powerful and perfectly moral would not allow the Holocaust. God would be both all-powerful and perfectly moral, and so he would prevent the Holocaust, not allow it, if he existed. Isn’t this obvious? If you disagree, then present your case.
RT15: Then you claim that Genesis 2 and 3 are fiction, but you cannot prove it.
GW15: I already did prove it. I gave you a detailed analysis of those chapters. If they were true, then they would describe what God would actually do, if he did exist. But they don’t. They describe what God would NOT do. If you disagree, then present your case. For example, do you actually believe that God would punish the descendants of Adam and Eve for their disobedience? If so, then your moral code is defective.
RT15: Further compounding your problem is the fact that where “the Garden of Eden” was located was in the area where “the Tigris” and “the Euphrates” rivers are located, the very area that is often called by scientists “the cradle of civilization.”
GW15: I don’t have the problem. You have the problem. The story is historical fiction, so it will have a few facts.
RT15: Scientists have also discovered that all humans are essentially related, very similar to the fact that “Adam–named his wife Eve, because she would be the mother of all who live” (Genesis 3:20 NLT).
GW15: To make his fiction (or his speculations) seem more credible to his readers the Genesis author is going to include some facts.
RT15: You say you use the NIV exclusively “because Bart Ehrman and most Biblical scholars use it.” You’re obviously unaware that Bible scholars who read and write in English use a variety of English Bible translations. There is no consensus that the NIV is the best to use.
GW15: If you were to scientifically survey a random sample of NT scholars and ask them what version or translation they use in their studies and arguments, more than 50% would name the NIV, which would exceed the percentage for any other option. I don’t have the time, energy, or motivation to do an intense investigation of which version is the BEST. So, it is rational for me to select the version used by more NT scholars than any other version. That would make sense for you too. However, you cherry-pick your version, which is a form of cheating.
Your CUE moral code borrows from God’s moral code, as expressed in the Bible, as do all moral codes more, or less.
God has allowed evils, such as the Holocaust, to occur to accomplish a greater good in the long run.
To illustrate, if your young child had a very serious cancer, there is no doubt that you would arrange for surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, etc., if the cancer experts on the case recommended such—even if it would mean some temporary pain and suffering for your child that he/she may not fully understand.
This is similar to the fact that you don’t understand how a loving God could allow evils such as the Holocaust. Even though we humans do not have have a complete understanding of all things, “We know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God” (Romans 8:28 NLT).
RT16: Your CUE moral code borrows from God’s moral code, as expressed in the Bible, as do all moral codes more, or less.
GW16: False. In devising CUE, I never consulted the Bible. I just used reason and compassion to devise the framework and the rules, which is what all rational persons do. If God did exist, that is what he would do also. Most moral codes will have some rules in common. This is not surprising.
RT16: God has allowed evils, such as the Holocaust, to occur to accomplish a greater good in the long run.
GW16: Here you are begging the question again — assuming from the start that God exists and has allowed evils. My argument does not address “evils” at all. It addresses one event – the Holocaust. Stop overgeneralizing! Focus your attention! If you believe God WOULD ALLOW the Holocaust to “accomplish a greater good,” then prove that act is even possible (given what we know about reality and morality) and specify what you believe the greater good would be. You can’t. You won’t.
RT16: To illustrate, if your young child had a very serious cancer, there is no doubt that you would arrange for surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, etc., if the cancer experts on the case recommended such—even if it would mean some temporary pain and suffering for your child that he/she may not fully understand.
GW16: Here you are correct. That is what I would do! But your analogy does not apply to God who would be all-powerful and perfectly moral. What would he do with childhood cancer? He would PREVENT it altogether! Thus, your objection is refuted.
RT16: This is similar to the fact that you don’t understand how a loving God could allow evils such as the Holocaust.
GW16: No, it is not similar. I have showed you how it is not similar. See above.
RT16: Even though we humans do not have have a complete understanding of all things,
GW16: Of course we do not understand all things! Duh. But we understand enough. We understand that if God did exist, he would have prevented the Holocaust. You have still not found an error in the argument.
RT16: “We know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God” (Romans 8:28 NLT).
GW16: False. We now know that God does not exist. The verse is false, even if God did exist! God would LOVE all persons, not just those who loved him, if he did exist. You are failing to understand the difference of LOVING and LIKING. They are not the same.
Your Holocaust argument was debunked Biblically earlier today, just as it has been many times already. You are quite “unreasonable” in your denial of God’s existence and bias against having “faith” (2 Thessalonians 3:2 KJV; WEB).
RT17: Your Holocaust argument was debunked Biblically earlier today, just as it has been many times already.
GW17: Oh really? What was the error you found in the argument? No, of course you found no error. You won’t, and you can’t.
RT17: You are quite “unreasonable” in your denial of God’s existence…
GW17: False. My Holocaust argument is reasonable and correct in proving that God does not exist. You have found no error in the argument, and so the conclusion stands.
RT17: and bias against having “faith” (2 Thessalonians 3:2 KJV; WEB).
GW17: That is just a citation, not a quote and from the wrong version. I certainly know that faith is inferior to reason.
The error in you Holocaust argument is that you assume God would not allow evils, such as the Holocaust, to occur, if he existed. However, creation itself gives solid evidence of God’s existence (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 1:20). Evils, such as the Holocaust, exist because of humans’ misuse of the free will that God has given (Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:12). God will undo all the damage that has been done (Isaiah 65:17; 1 John 3:8; Revelation 21:1-4).
Also, please see the just published article on this site, “Is Faith Inferior to reason?”
RT1: The error in you Holocaust argument is that you assume God would not allow evils, such as the Holocaust, to occur, if he existed.
GW1: This is a very poorly stated sentence. I think you left out words that you intended to include. A better formulation would go like this: “I believe an error in your Holocaust argument is that you assume that God would not allow evils, such as the Holocaust, to occur, if he existed.” I will respond to that reformulation.
GW1: Your belief is that I have made an error, but your belief is mistaken. I did not assume that God would not allow evils. I don’t mention “evil” in the argument, and I don’t even use the concept or word “evil” anymore. In the argument I rationally demonstrate why God would not allow the Holocaust, if he did exist. If you think he would, then present your case for that. You haven’t found an error. You have not proven an error.
RT1: However, creation itself gives solid evidence of God’s existence (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 1:20).
GW1: This is begging the question. The author assumes what he is trying to prove or has the burden of proving. Even today in the 21st century we do not have “solid evidence” that our universe had a beginning, let alone a cause of the beginning or a creator of it. But we have many correct proofs that God does not exist!
RT1: Evils, such as the Holocaust, exist because of humans’ misuse of the free will that God has given (Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:12).
GW1: The Holocaust was a horrible harm. I do not use the concept of “evil” anymore. If God did exist, he would not have given humans, including the Nazis, the free will to assault, murder, torture, and commit genocide. He would have withheld that kind of free will. Why? Because to give it would ENABLE humans to intentionally and seriously harm other humans. God would not do that! The ENABLING would itself be an immoral act, and if he existed, God would never commit any immoral act. Duh. You are thinking of what your god would do, not what God would do.
RT1: God will undo all the damage that has been done (Isaiah 65:17; 1 John 3:8; Revelation 21:1-4).
GW1: This is pure nonsense! If God did exist, he wouldn’t do damage so that he could undo it. That is one of the most ridiculous ideas ever invented. God would not be stupid. Quit attributing stupidity to God! To allow the Holocaust itself would be an immoral act. Why? Because it would intentionally cause great harm to humans and would do so without their consent.
RT1: Also, please see the just published article on this site, “Is Faith Inferior to reason?”
GW1: I read it and refuted it.
“The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation . . . His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection”—Albert Einstein
As Einstein mentioned, the existence of an all-wise, all-powerful God, the intelligence behind natural law, is obvious.
You believe in Dark Matter, which makes up 95% of the matter of the universe. Yet no one knows exactly what it is. But we don’t deny science or astronomy, do we?
“By what way is light diffused?”—Job 38:24 NKJV
We still don’t know just exactly how light diffusion occurs, yet we know it happens. But we don’t doubt the fact that light travels through the universe, do we?
“Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades?”—Job 38:31 NKJV
We still don’t completely understand gravity, yet we don’t doubt its existence, do we?.
Likewise, we don’t fully understand everything about God, including his allowance of evils, such as the Holocaust. But this doesn’t negate his existence!
RT: “The scientist is possessed by the sense of of universal causation . . . His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection”—Albert Einstein
GW: The scientist is intrigued by or curious about (not “possessed” by) the idea of universal causation. Some scientists have religious beliefs, but most in the modern world do not. Albert provided no good evidence for his speculation that some intelligent agent designed or created our universe. Universal causation is true, regardless of the existence of any god. Besides, we now know that God does not exist.
RT: As Einstein mentioned, the existence of an all-wise, all-powerful God, the intelligence behind natural law, is obvious.
GW: False. If you falsely believe that he mentioned this, then provide the quote, the citation, and the link. Einstein was an atheist. But regardless of his personal beliefs or yours, God does not exist. This has been proven.
GW: Here are some relevant quotes from Einstein for you to ponder:
“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
– Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman.
“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after his own–a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egoism.”
from “Religion and science,” New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930.
RT: You believe in Dark Matter, which makes up 95% of the matter of the universe. Yet no one knows exactly what it is. But we don’t deny science or astronomy, do we?
GW: We have strong evidence for dark matter, but not for God. In fact we now know that God does not exist. I proved this with my Holocaust argument in which you have found no error. Until/unless you find and present an error in it, you have no leg to stand on.
RT: “By what way is light diffused?”—Job 38:24 NKJV
GW: Light is diffused by prisms of various kinds. I use the NIV, the version used by the relevant experts.
RT: We still don’t know just exactly how light diffusion occurs, yet we know it happens. But we don’t doubt the fact that light travels through the universe, do we?
GW: We know light exists and we know that God does not exist. It’s that simple.
RT: “Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades?”—Job 38:31 NKJV
GW: Gravity does that, not persons. I use the NIV, the version used by the relevant experts.
RT: We still don’t completely understand gravity, yet we don’t doubt its existence, do we?.
GW: We know that gravity exists because we have good evidence for it. We know that God does not exist because we have good arguments that he doesn’t, especially my Holocaust argument.
RT: Likewise, we don’t fully understand everything about God, including his allowance of evils, such as the Holocaust. But this doesn’t negate his existence!
GW: Once again you have committed the error of “begging the question.” You are assuming that God exists, when you have not proven that he does AND more importantly, it has been proven that he doesn’t. I don’t use the concept of “evil” and you shouldn’t either. By definition, if God did exist, he would be both omni-powerful and omni-moral. Agree? Any person like that would never allow the Holocaust to occur. Agree? But the Holocaust did occur. Agree? Therefore, God does not and cannot exist. Furthermore, if God did exist and allowed the Holocaust, then you, I, and everyone else would already know his reasons for allowing the Holocaust. We don’t. Therefore, God does not exist. By now, since we have gone over this many times, it should be obvious to you that God does not exist. You have found no error in may argument. You can’t. You won’t.
Habakkuk could not understand why God allowed evil to exist, just as many do today:
“How long, O LORD, must I call for help? But why do you not listen! ‘Violence is everywhere,’ I cry, but you do not come to save. Must I forever see these evil deeds? Why must I watch all this misery? Wherever I look, I see destruction and violence. I am surrounded by people who love to argue and fight. The law has become paralyzed, and there is no justice in the courts. The wicked far outnumber the righteous, so that justice has become perverted”—Habakkuk 1:2-4 NLT
Almighty God responded with this reply, and it applies to today as well:
“‘Look around at the nations; look and be amazed! For I am doing something in your own day, something you wouldn’t believe even if someone told you about it'”—Habakkuk 1:5 NLT
God went on to further say:
“The vision is for a future time. It describes the end, and it will be fulfilled. If it seems slow in coming, wait patiently, for it will surely take place. It will not be delayed . . . But the righteous will live by their faithfulness to God”—Habakkuk 2:3,4 NLT
Just as God to took action to intervene in Habakkuk’s day, so he will in the end.
Habakkuk’s attitude is a good one for us to imitate:
“I shall rejoice in Yahweh, I shall exult in God my Saviour. Yahweh my Lord is my strength, he will make my feet as light as a doe’s, and set my steps on the heights”—Habakkuk 3:18,19 NJB
By having faith in God, you have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. The worse thing that can happen to you is eternal death, which is exactly what you’re facing right now within a few short years anyway. On the other hand, you have eternal life to gain, if your faith in God proves true!
Also, notice the very wise, reasonable attitude expressed:
“Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to the king, ‘Nebuchadnezzar, we don’t need to give you an answer to this question. IF THE GOD WE SERVE EXISTS, the HE can rescue us from the furnace of blazing fire, and He can rescue us from the power of the king. But if He does not, we want you as king to know that we will not serve your gods or worship the gold statue that you set up”—Daniel 3:17,18 HCSB
Their trust in Yahweh was well-placed, because he did rescue them, proving to all that he exists!
His maintenance of the universe, and occasional interventions in human affairs, such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ, also prove his existence (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 1:20; Acts 17:30).
GW1: For the sake of simplicity, I will respond to both your new comments in one reply.
RT1: Habakkuk could not understand why God allowed evil to exist, just as many do today:
GW1: We NOW understand – God does not exist!
RT1: “How long, O LORD, must I call for help? But why do you not listen! ‘Violence is everywhere,’ I cry, but you do not come to save. Must I forever see these evil deeds? Why must I watch all this misery? Wherever I look, I see destruction and violence. I am surrounded by people who love to argue and fight. The law has become paralyzed, and there is no justice in the courts. The wicked far outnumber the righteous, so that justice has become perverted”—Habakkuk 1:2-4 NLT
GW1: Habakkuk complains to God, whom he assumes to exist, about harms occurring in his life. The situation is not as severe as the Holocaust, but still fairly bad and somewhat similar.
RT1: Almighty God responded with this reply, and it applies to today as well:
GW1: False. Although God might reply in fiction, there is no good evidence that he has ever replied in real life. And we now know why – he doesn’t exist!
RT1: “‘Look around at the nations; look and be amazed! For I am doing something in your own day, something you wouldn’t believe even if someone told you about it’”—Habakkuk 1:5 NLT
GW1: If God did exist, he would never reply in this way. He is not answering the question – “Why are you allowing all this severe harm to occur?” God is dodging the question, like a modern politician would, like Donald Trump often would.
RT1: God went on to further say: “The vision is for a future time. It describes the end, and it will be fulfilled. If it seems slow in coming, wait patiently, for it will surely take place. It will not be delayed . . . But the righteous will live by their faithfulness to God”—Habakkuk 2:3,4 NLT
GW1: If God did exist, he also would not say this either. Instead, God would give the reason or reasons why he was allowing the current severe harms to occur. He would not essentially say “Don’t worry about it. Be patient. Wait for a better future.” That doesn’t help! That doesn’t work as an excuse for allowing significant harm to occur, when you can prevent, stop, or reduce it! People want results, not empty promises. Also, even if God did present reasons, would they be morally justified reasons? If they were, then Habakkuk would know that the speaker was God. If they were not, then Habakkuk would know that the speaker was not God.
GW1: Keep in mind that you have NOT PROVEN that morally justified reasons for allowing the Holocaust are even possible. And you have presented no candidates for those reasons, i.e. you have stated no specific reason which could be a morally justified one. Your silence on these matters is defeated by my rational argument.
RT1: Just as God to took action to intervene in Habakkuk’s day, so he will in the end.
GW1: But in the story, God did not intervene except to say “Retain your hope.” And “I promise I’ll fix things later.” The harms continued. That’s not sufficient for an all-powerful perfectly moral god.
RT1: Habakkuk’s attitude is a good one for us to imitate:
GW1: False. Habakkuk’s attitude is despicable! If Habakkuk were rational he would reply to the imposter: “You are not God. If you were God, either you would tell us your reasons for having allowed these harms OR you would stop them immediately OR BOTH. But you have done neither! You just make promises which are meaningless to us. Get away from us, you imposter.”
RT1: “I shall rejoice in Yahweh, I shall exult in God my Saviour. Yahweh my Lord is my strength, he will make my feet as light as a doe’s, and set my steps on the heights”—Habakkuk 3:18,19 NJB
GW1: In this fictional story, Habakkuk thinks and behaves irrationally. And the character of God behaves irrationally and immorally. This god who makes false promises is not God, but an imposter. If this god were God, then he would prevent, stop, or reduce the harms! And he would honestly and directly tell the people why he allowed the harms to occur up to that moment.
RT1: By having faith in God, you have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.
GW1: False. I refuted this idea of Pascal’s Wager in my book “God Wants You to be an Atheist.” Didn’t you read it? Also, the same idea has been refuted many times by other authors. If God did exist, having faith in God is EXACTLY WHAT GOD WOULD NOT WANT YOU TO DO.
RT1: The worse thing that can happen to you is eternal death,…
GW1: Says who? Not the Christians! They say that the worse thing that can happen to me is eternal torture in hell. However, the worse thing that can happen to anybody by believing that God exists is that they make their life worse and make the lives of others worse than they would have been without that belief. Design and plan your life on the basis of truth, not falsehood, and the world will be better for it.
RT1: which is exactly what you’re facing right now within a few short years anyway.
GW1: You are close to the same age as I am. We are both probably going to die in 12-20 years. Duh.
RT1: On the other hand, you have eternal life to gain, if your faith in God proves true!
GW1: I’m glad you said “if”! But we now know that the “if” contingency is not fulfilled. We now know that God does not exist and that eternal life is super-improbable. We conclude the latter because of brain research, and we conclude the former because of arguments like my Holocaust argument, in which you have found no error.
RT1: Also, notice the very wise, reasonable attitude expressed: “Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to the king, ‘Nebuchadnezzar, we don’t need to give you an answer got this question. IF THE GOD WE SERVE EXISTS, then HE can rescue us from the furnace of blazing fire, and He can rescue us from the power of the king. But is if He does not, we want you as king to know that we will not serve your gods or worship the gold statue that you set up”—-Daniel 3:17,18 HCSB
GW1: Oh, this was just a senseless argument over whose gods exist. There is no good reason today to believe that any god exists, including God, Nebuchadnezzar’s gods, or [any] god.
RT1: Their trust in Yahweh was well-placed, because he did rescue them, proving to all that he exists!
GW1: Nonsense. You are making the error of “post hoc, ergo propter hoc.” “Because Y follows X, then Y must have been caused by X.” Even if God does not exist, sometimes circumstances improve.
RT1: His maintenance of the universe, and occasional interventions in human affairs, such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ, also prove his existence (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 1:20; Acts 17:30).
GW1: False. You have proven neither that God maintains the universe nor intervenes in it. If he did exist, would he need to maintain the universe or intervene in it, if he created it? Wouldn’t it be perfect and run on its own without flaw? But, it’s even worse than that – we have now proven that God doesn’t exist at all!
GW1: We’ve discussed the alleged resurrection of Jesus ad nauseum. As Bart Ehrman and I have repeatedly shown, there is no good evidence that Jesus came back to life. No good reports, remnants, recordings, or time travel. No modern meetings with an alive Jesus. No good evidence. ZERO! If you had it, then you would have already produced it, but you haven’t. If anybody had it, they would have already produced it, but they haven’t.
GW1: Here is a new version of my Holocaust argument which you may find easier to follow:
Another Holocaust Argument against the Existence of God: 5-13-2023
1. The Holocaust occurred. This is a fact.
2. The existence of God is a hypothesis. We may start by assuming that the existence of God is possible.
3. The existence of God has many meanings and many predictable consequences.
4. We can and should rationally determine these meanings and consequences by taking the standard definition of God seriously and literally.
5. One predictable consequence of the existence of God is that the Holocaust never occurred or would have never occurred.
6. But the Holocaust did occur.
7. And so, the possible existence of God contradicts the actual occurrence of the Holocaust.
8. So, the existence of God is no longer possible.
9. God does not exist and cannot exist within our reality, the one we live in.
Addendum:
10. The existence of Amoral-god is a hypothesis.
11. “Amoral” means not possessing, complying with, or enforcing any moral code, including the most widely accepted one.
12. The existence of Amoral-god is compatible with the occurrence of the Holocaust.
13. Therefore, the existence of Amoral-god remains possible in our reality.
14. The existence of Immoral-god is a hypothesis.
15. “Immoral” means intentionally violating moral codes, including the most widely accepted one, and thus intentionally harming other persons. It would include intentionally allowing harm to other persons.
16. The existence of Immoral-god is compatible with the occurrence of the Holocaust.
17. Therefore, the existence of Immoral-god remains possible in our reality.
18. However, if it were proven (it hasn’t yet) that either Amoral-god or Immoral-god did exist, then we should not respect, admire, obey, or worship this god. Instead, we should disrespect, disdain, disobey, and condemn this god. We should rebel against this god.
You are mistaken. God told Habakkuk:
“I am raising up the Babylonians . . . “—Habakkuk 1:5 NLT
They came and destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple, and carried off captives (2 Kings 36:17-21), just as God foretold through his prophets.
People today “deliberately forget that God . . . used the water to destroy the ancient world with water. and by the same word, the present heavens and earth have been stored up for fire. They are being kept for the day of judgment, when ungodly people will be destroyed” (2 Peter 3:5-7 NLT).
Your Holocaust argument point #5 is a false assumption, and therefore every point after your #6 is false.
RT2: You are mistaken.
GW2: False. I am correct.
RT2: God told Habakkuk: “I am raising up the Babylonians . . . “—Habakkuk 1:5 NLT
GW2: False. There is no good evidence that God has ever spoken to any human persons. Also, God does not even exist, as shown by my H argument and others.
RT2: They came and destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple, and carried off captives (2 Kings 36:17-21), just as God foretold through his prophets.
GW2: If God did exist, he would not have allowed this behavior and so he would not have foretold it. God would not lie.
RT2: People today “deliberately forget that God . . . used the water to destroy the ancient world with water. and by the same word, the present heavens and earth have been stored up for fire. They are being kept for the day of judgment, when ungodly people will be destroyed” (2 Peter 3:5-7 NLT).
GW2: If God did exist, he would never punish persons in the manner described. Unfortunately, you have adopted a concept of God used by the ancient Israelites, a concept which is irrational, false, unhelpful, and obsolete. Join the 21st century and adopt the concept of God which has been refined over the millennia. “God is 1) the hypothetical, unique, supernatural, independent, spiritual, normally invisible person, intelligent agent, or sentient entity. He is OMNI lasting (eternal), present, knowing, powerful, intelligent, rational, creative, and resilient (invincible). He is also OMNI compassionate and moral with respect to other persons. He fills the roles of cosmos designer and producer (creator), occasional interventionist in the world, and afterlife manager who decides the desirable or undesirable disposition of human souls after they die. or 2) the greatest imaginable possible person (the “GIPPer”) who, if he existed, would surely be worthy of our greatest respect, admiration, and worship. Or 3) the hypothetical ideal person, intelligent agent, or sentient being, i.e. that possible person with all desirable traits to their highest degrees and with no undesirable traits.”
RT2: Your Holocaust argument point #5 is a false assumption, and therefore every point after your #6 is false.
GW2: Point #5 is this: “5. Therefore, God does not exist.” This is not an assumption at all! It is a true conclusion logically following from previous true premises. You just disagree with the conclusion, even though it is true. To invalidate the conclusion you must find an error in the preceding premises or in the logic itself, neither of which you have done, so far. You can’t, and you won’t.
GW2: Maybe this will be easier for you to follow:
The Holocaust was a horrible harm.
If you visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, and you do not become tearful, something is terribly deficient in you.
You know “in your heart” that it was wrong for the Nazis to cause the Holocaust.
You also know “in your heart” that it would be wrong for you to allow the Holocaust, if you could prevent it.
So, it is rational and fairly simple to come to know that God does not exist by recognizing that if he did exist, he would have prevented the Holocaust. Why?
Because he would have had both the power and the moral character to prevent it! This is as simple as concluding that 2+2=4.
So why do people continue to believe in God? Some are anxious about adopting a new worldview. Some are afraid that they won’t be able to control themselves. Still others know they are fallible and believe that if they are mistaken that God does not exist, then God will punish them, possibly sending them to eternal torment after death. Others are just “creatures of habit” and have believed in God for so long, even since they were children, that they just can’t break free. There are so many reasons.
Learn to live with the truth! The truth will set you free!
“I have thought deeply about all that goes on here under the sun, where people have the power to hurt each other”—Ecclesiastes 8:9 NLT
The so-called “Holocaust” describes the period of time from 1933-1945 when Hitler’s so-called “Third Reich,” Nazis, perpetrated much evil toward others. We have visited and toured the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., and have been very familiar with the evils the Museum displays for years prior to the time when the term “Holocaust” began to be applied to those events.
There have been many other evils inflicted by humans upon other humans here on earth, just as God foretold as a result of humans flaunting his standards and warning (Genesis 2:15-17; 3:16-19; Romans 5:12).
“All the nations of the world are but a drop in the bucket. They are nothing more than dust on the scales. He picks up the whole earth as though it were a grain of sand”—Isaiah 40:15 NLT
The power of all earth’s nations combined is nothing to the Almighty. Jesus and his heavenly armies will “strike down the nations” (Revelation 19:15 NIV; NLT). Earth’s problems will be solved once for all (Revelation 21:1-4).
RT3: “I have thought deeply about all that goes on here under the sun, where people have the power to hurt each other”—Ecclesiastes 8:9 NLT
GW3: You should be using NIV, but regardless, in my opinion, Ecclesiastes is one of the best books of the Bible and the author of that book is one of the wisest authors of the Bible. Still wrong about many things, but the best of the lot.
RT3: The so-called “Holocaust” describes the period of time from 1933-1945 when Hitler’s so-called “Third Reich,” Nazis, perpetrated much evil toward others.
GW3: Except for the term “evil,” I agree with you here. The Nazis greatly harmed the Jews and other people, killing an estimated six million Jews. Have you ever visited the Holocaust Museum in DC? If so, how did you feel when going through it?
RT3: We have visited and toured the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., and have been very familiar with the evils the Museum displays for years prior to the time when the term “Holocaust” began to be applied to those events.
GW3: I am pleased that you toured that museum. When the term “Holocaust” began to be applied to “those events” is irrelevant to my argument. You are just making a distraction with that. What was your emotional reaction to the tour?
RT3: There have been many other evils inflicted by humans upon other humans here on earth, just as God foretold as a result of humans flaunting his standards and warning (Genesis 2:15-17; 3:16-19; Romans 5:12).
GW3: False. First, I don’t use the term “evil” anymore. It has too much religious baggage, and it is now obsolete. The Holocaust was a horrible harm primarily caused by the Nazis. I hope we agree on that much. Secondly, we aren’t talking about harms in general. We are talking about one specific horrible harm. So, you are casting your net too widely. Stay on topic. Thirdly, there is no good evidence that God has ever communicated with human beings. Zero! If he had, we know what it would be like. I’ve told you. Fourthly, if God did exist, he would not FORETELL horrible harms. Instead, he would PREVENT them! Duh. You seem to think that God would have allowed the Holocaust, but you have not proven that he would. You have not even proven that it would be possible for an all-powerful perfectly moral person to have a morally justified reason to allow the Holocaust. And you haven’t specified what this magical reason would be. And lastly, several other persons and I have proven that God does not exist, and you have found no error in my argument.
RT3: “All the nations of the world are but a drop in the bucket. They are nothing more than dust on the scales. He picks up the whole earth as though it were a grain of sand”—Isaiah 40:15 NLT
GW3: False. This is old speculation. We now know that God does not exist. The author of Isaiah did the best he could with what he had, like those who believed the Earth was flat or that the Sun revolved around the Earth. But we now know those ideas are mistaken, just like we know that God does not exist. Join us in the 21st century!
RT3: The power of all earth’s nations combined is nothing to the Almighty.
GW3: Might does not make right. If God did exist, he would use his might to do right, NOT to do wrong! He would prevent the Holocaust rather than allow it. Duh. How can you not understand this? You can partly. You know “in your heart” that it would be wrong for you or anyone to allow the Holocaust, if you could prevent it. You know that much. So, just connect the dots.
RT3: Jesus and his heavenly armies will “strike down the nations” (Revelation 19:15 NIV; NLT).
GW3: Nonsense! Jesus is dead. Get over it! Bart Ehrman has a new book out which you should read – “Armageddon: What the Bible Really Says about the End” March 21, 2023
RT3: Earth’s problems will be solved once for all (Revelation 21:1-4).
GW3: If God did exist, he would not work that way – allowing or causing horrible harms to occur and then later preventing all of them, forever rewarding the souls of the virtuous and punishing the souls of the immoral. No, you are thinking of a lesser god. Instead, God would PREVENT all the horrible harms on Earth, including the Holocaust. Why? Because unlike us, he would be all-powerful and perfectly moral. Duh. I don’t know why you can’t see this.
GW3: You and probably a hundred other persons have now examined my Holocaust argument and nobody has found an error in it. Why? Because there is no error in it. The definitions are sound, the premises are true, and the logic is impeccable per modus tolens. Therefore, the conclusion is and must be true – God does not exist. Just because God does not exist and just because you will come to know that he does not exist, his does not mean that you have permission to behave immorally. You are still bound by Correct Universal Ethics. Keep that in mind.
We’re not under under CUE. We agree with Paul, “I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law” (1 Corinthians 9:21 NIV).
Your Holocaust Argument has been debunked here many times, including today.
“The Holocaust” isn’t the only atrocity ever committed. One of us is a descendent of American Indians. These ancestors were treated horribly by European invaders and the US and other governments.
The point of this article is that faith is not only not inferior to reason, but is based on reason. “Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6).
Your choice is to not have faith in God (2 Thessalonians 3:2).
RT4: We’re not under under CUE.
GW4: We should be. Eventually we will be. What do you have against Correct Universal Ethics?
RT4: We agree with Paul, “I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law” (1 Corinthians 9:21 NIV).
GW4: Who’s in charge, God or Christ? Jesus was a man, not the Christ, and Jesus is dead. If God did exist, he would be in charge and he would devise, implement, follow, and enforce Correct Universal Ethics. This is one way we know that he doesn’t exist.
RT4: Your Holocaust Argument has been debunked here many times, including today.
GW4: False. Neither you nor anyone else has ever found any error in the argument.
RT4: “The Holocaust” isn’t the only atrocity ever committed.
GW4: Straw man. I never claimed that it is the only atrocity. But my argument is about the Holocaust, so try to keep your mind focused on it, if that is possible.
RT4: One of us is a descendent of American Indians. These ancestors were treated horribly by European invaders and the US and other governments.
GW4: Yes, but my argument isn’t about that. Try to keep your mind focused on the Holocaust, if that is possible. The occurrence of other horrible harms does not invalidate my argument. It only takes one.
RT4: The point of this article is that faith is not only not inferior to reason, but is based on reason.
GW4: False. Not only is faith inferior to reason, it is the OPPOSITE or converse of reason! We’ve been over this already. 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 and hopes, or some combination of these. Having faith leads to poor judgement and bad behavior, and thus it is a vice. Here are some examples of faith: “I have faith that Jesus died, came back to life, and is alive today.” “I have faith that extraterrestrials from other galaxies live among us.” “I have faith that God exists.”
RT4: “Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6).
GW4: False again. If God did exist, he would be pleased with reason and displeased with faith. God himself would be omni intelligent and rational!
RT4: Your choice is to not have faith in God (2 Thessalonians 3:2).
GW4: When I am presented with a choice of reason vs. faith, I always choose reason. God does not exist, and this has been proven by my H argument in which you have found no error.
GW4: You know “in your heart” that it is wrong to allow a horrible harm, when you can prevent it. This intuition is the basis of one moral rule in CUE.
GW4: If a person presented herself to us, claimed to be God, and claimed to be perfectly moral, how would you evaluate her claims and decide if they were true or false? Describe your method. Or would you simply accept or reject her claims on faith?
“Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God’s laws is written in their own hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right” (Romans 2:14,15 NLT). Imperfect humanly devised moral codes, like your CUE and your Holocaust argument, would not exist were it not for God. Atheists deny God, while at the same stealing ideas from him. Atheism is a dead end street, whereas serving the living God has an eternal future (Matthew 7:13,14).
RT1: “Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God’s laws is written in their own hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right” (Romans 2:14,15 NLT).
GW1: False. God does not exist, and this has been proven. On the other hand, we do have impulses, instincts, and consciences. They are all natural phenomena. However, they do not necessarily point to correct moral behavior. For example, we may have an impulse to strike somebody when they insult us, but this would be immoral behavior. It would violate CUE.
RT1: Imperfect humanly devised moral codes, like your CUE and your Holocaust argument, would not exist were it not for God. Atheists deny God, while at the same stealing ideas from him.
GW1: When you say “imperfect,” this implies a standard. Where did you get your standard? You didn’t get it from God because he does not exist. You have developed or adopted a moral code and I have too. Which one is correct? Mine is correct because I developed it based on reason and compassion. Your code is full of errors because you have not based it on reason and compassion. Now, if God did exist, he would have devised, implemented, complied with, and enforced CUE. He would have devised it based on reason and compassion. We cannot even judge if a god is moral unless we first have a moral code or standard in mind. Which standard shall we use? CUE of course.
RT1: Atheism is a dead end street, whereas serving the living God has an eternal future (Matthew 7:13,14).
GW1: Mathew 7:13-14 says nothing about atheism, and so you are misusing the verses here.
GW1: God does not exist, and this has been proven. Until or unless you find an error in my Holocaust argument, I will know that God does not exist. Atheism is a much broader concept– it is the absence of belief in all gods, not just God.
GW1: To believe that if God did exist he would have had a morally justified reason for allowing the Holocaust to occur is to give Hitler the excuse “Got mitt uns – God with us. We were just doing what God wanted us to do.” You are mistaken not only intellectually, but morally. There were no morally justified reasons for anybody to allow the Holocaust, period.
GW1: If God did exist and had a morally justified reason for allowing the Holocaust, then Hitler was just doing what God wanted which was Hitler’s morally justified reason for causing the Holocaust. By analogy, if God did exist and had a morally justified reason for allowing the crucifixion of Jesus, then Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate, and the Romans were just doing what God wanted which became their morally justified reason for jointly causing the crucifixion.
If you had been in Hitler’s position and if God ordered you to order the extermination of the Jews, would you do it? Explain your answer.
I would not order the extermination of the Jews. That would be immoral. If God did exist, not only would he not order me to exterminate the Jews, he would never want that to happen, would never have a morally justified reason to order it or even allow it, and thus he would not have allowed the Holocaust to occur at all! This is one reason why God does not exist.
God’s moral code is:
“Do to others what you would like them to do to you”—Matthew 7:12
“Love your neighbor as yourself”—Matthew 22:39
If everyone followed God’s moral code, evils would not occur.
“Enter the narrow gate. For is the gate and broad it’s the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life and only a few find it”—Matthew 7:13,14 NIV
All who are not on the ‘narrow road’ are on the ‘broad road’. This would include atheists, because “whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them” (John 3:36 NIV).
RT2: God’s moral code is:
GW2: God doesn’t have a moral code. He doesn’t exist, and this has been proven. However, if some all-powerful god does exist, then he must be either amoral or immoral. How do we know this? Because if he were moral, he would have prevented the Holocaust. We should never worship an amoral or immoral god.
RT2: “Do to others what you would like them to do to you”—Matthew 7:12
GW2: So if you like to be harmed, then you should harm others? The Golden Rule is not good enough for CUE.
RT2: “Love your neighbor as yourself”—Matthew 22:39
GW2: No, you shouldn’t do that in crisis or “lifeboat” situations. This command is not good enough for CUE. In those situations you should love yourself and your family more than your neighbor.
RT2: If everyone followed God’s moral code, evils would not occur.
GW2: I don’t use the concept of evil anymore. It has too much religious baggage. God doesn’t have a moral code because he doesn’t exist. But if God did exist, he would have CUE as his moral code, and by following CUE he would have prevented the Holocaust. Isn’t this obvious? What is the CUE rule on prevention? I have presented it to you before, but here I will present it to you again:
“Any person X should attempt to prevent any moderate to severe harm H1 to any person Y or any group of persons Z, if and only if 1) X certainly or probably knows about the opportunity to help by prevention or should know, given the available evidence, 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.”
Now, just connect the dots. None of the seven exceptions would be applicable to God, and so he would be morally obligated to prevent the Holocaust. Isn’t this obvious?
RT2: “Enter the narrow gate. For is the gate and broad it’s the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life and only a few find it”—Matthew 7:13,14 NIV
GW2: All life leads to death. As of now, nobody can escape death.
RT2: All who are not on the ‘narrow road’ are on the ‘broad road’. This would include atheists, because “whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them” (John 3:36 NIV).
GW2: Atheists do not have any beliefs in any gods, and that is a good thing. If God did exist, he would approve of this position and disapprove of the theist position since it is not based on reason. For more on this idea, read my book again – God Wants You to be an Atheist. God has no wrath because he does not exist. This has been proven by many arguments, including my own Holocaust argument in which you still have found no error. In fact, over 50 persons have examined the argument and none has found an error. Spread the Good News!
For a person to have everything in the right perspective, “You must love the LORD [Yahweh] your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment” (Matthew 22:37,38 NLT). “The commandments say, ‘You must not commit adultery. You must not murder. You must not steal. You must not covet.’ These–and other such commandments–are summed up in the one commandment: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to others, so love fulfills the requirements of God’s law” (Romans 13:9,10 NLT). This is highly superior to, and simpler, than all other moral codes!
RT3: For a person to have everything in the right perspective, “You must love the LORD [Yahweh] your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment” (Matthew 22:37,38 NLT).
GW3: False. You can’t love a nonexistent person! God does not exist, and this has been proven by many arguments, including my own Holocaust argument, in which you have found no error. Also, “love” has several different meanings. The primary meaning refers to an emotion. You can’t command emotions.
RT3: “The commandments say, ‘You must not commit adultery. You must not murder. You must not steal. You must not covet.’
GW3: Regarding adultery, this is part of CUE: “Any person X should not engage in adultery if X has made a promise of monogamy to a partner Y.”
GW3: Regarding killing, this is part of CUE:
“Any person X should not kill another person Y, unless
1. X must kill Y because this killing is necessary for X to prevent death or serious harm to X or to person Z who is endangered by Y. (Defense)
2. X must kill Z who is an innocent bystander because this killing is necessary for X to prevent death or serious harm to X or to person Z who is endangered by Y, and Z happens to be “in the way.” (Collateral Damage)
3. X is authorized to kill Y by Y (written informed consent) because (Mercy Killing)
a. Y has been in a coma for more than a year and the probability of recovery is very low
b. Y is very probably going to die within three months anyway
c. Y has intractable suffering which has lasted more than six months and the probability of reversing it is very low
d. Y exceeds the age of 90
4. X must kill Y because Y has killed or done serious harm to Z and the usual ethical procedures of arrest, indictment, trial, conviction, and incarceration are impossible or very impractical in this particular case. (Rare Justice)
5. X must kill Z who is an innocent hostage of Y because this killing is necessary for X to prevent death or serious harm to X or to person P who is endangered by Y. (Hostage)
GW3: Regarding stealing, this is part of CUE: “Any person X should not steal the property of any other person Y, when such property has been morally and legally acquired. Stealing includes theft, robbery, extortion, and taking through deception or fraud.”
GW3: Coveting is just an attitude, not a behavior. There is no moral rule in CUE regarding coveting. Coveting is similar to envy. You may be as envious as you want as long as it does not lead to immoral behavior.
RT3: These–and other such commandments–are summed up in the one commandment: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
GW3: False. The above CUE rules are more aptly summed up by the general principle “Respect others and their property.”
RT3: Love does no wrong to others, so love fulfills the requirements of God’s law” (Romans 13:9,10 NLT).
GW3: God doesn’t have a law. God does not exist. But if God did exist, his law would be Correct Universal Ethics. In CUE there is no requirement to “love” others. The most common meaning of love is that it is an emotion. You cannot command emotions.
RT3: This is highly superior to, and simpler, than all other moral codes!
GW3: False. It is not superior to CUE, as I have shown. It may be simpler than some other moral codes, but it is too simple. It is ambiguous, general, not comprehensive, and replete with errors.
GW3: Once again, here is the CUE rule on prevention, a rule which has been violated by any all-powerful god, which might exist, by allowing the Holocaust:
“Any person X should attempt to prevent any moderate to severe harm H1 to any person Y or any group of persons Z, if and only if 1) X certainly or probably knows about the opportunity to help by prevention or should know, given the available evidence, 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.”
You’re wrong. God’s laws/principle are highly superior to CUE, or any other human-devised code. You’re right, there are no human laws against conveting, or to love God and your neighbor. This is the very reason God’s laws/principles are highly superior!!! “Love does no wrong to a neighbor” (Romans 13:10 ESV). “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29). Everyone (Luke 10:30-37)!!!!
RT4: You’re wrong.
GW4: No. You’re wrong.
RT4: God’s laws/principle are highly superior to CUE, or any other human-devised code.
GW4: God has no moral code because God does not exist. There is no good evidence that God has ever communicated any moral code to human beings. If he had, we know what that communication would be like. But if God did exist and had communicated a moral code to humans, then it would be CUE. Nothing can be superior to itself. Your claim is refuted.
RT4: You’re right, there are no human laws against conveting, or to love God and your neighbor.
GW4: CUE does not include a moral rule against COVETING, or requiring loving God or neighbor. Moral rules are more about respect and cooperation, not having an emotion.
RT4: This is the very reason God’s laws/principles are highly superior!!!
GW4: I already refuted this claim. See above.
RT4: “Love does no wrong to a neighbor” (Romans 13:10 ESV). “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29). Everyone (Luke 10:30-37)!!!!
GW4: You should not love your neighbor if your neighbor has assaulted you or your family. Is Hitler your neighbor? Should you love Hitler? No. I don’t know why you would advocate for an obsolete and flawed moral code written by only men more than two thousand years ago. Haven’t you heard of moral progress?
“Moral progress”?—“There is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which one might say: ‘See, this is new’? It as been already in the ages before us” (Ecclesiastes 1:9,10 ESV). Humans have made no overall moral progress. There is still as much oppression in the world as there has always been (Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 ESV), “where people have the power to hurt each other”, and they do (Ecclesiastes 8:9 NLT). God’s “commands make [one] wiser than . . . enemies”, “have more insight than . . . teachers”, “even wiser than . . . elders”, in fact, “those who love [God’s] instructions have great peace and do not stumble” (Psalm 119:98-100,163 NLT).
RT5: “Moral progress”?—“There is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which one might say: ‘See, this is new’? It as been already in the ages before us” (Ecclesiastes 1:9,10 ESV).
GW5: Of course there has been moral progress! How can you not see this? Although there are hundreds of examples, I will give you just two.
GW5: One CUE rule is this: “Any person X should not enslave any other person Y.” This has been correct everywhere since the beginning of persons. However, moral progress has been made in the acceptance, application, and enforcement of the rule. The percentage of persons in the world who are enslaved has gradually declined.
GW5: Another CUE rule is this: “Any state X should never interfere with gay persons who decide to marry.” This has been correct everywhere since the beginning of persons. However, moral progress has been made in the acceptance, application, and enforcement of the rule. The percentage of gay persons in the world who have allowed to marry and have married has gradually increased.
RT5: Humans have made no overall moral progress.
GW5: That is pure nonsense. I gave you two obvious examples of moral progress. If you want more, then I suggest you read these books:
1. “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined” by Steven Pinker.
2. “Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress” by Steven Pinker.
3. “The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People” by Michael Shermer
4. “Mere Morality” by Dan Barker.
5. “One World Now” by Peter Singer.
6. “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind” by Yuval Noah Harari.
RT5: There is still as much oppression in the world as there has always been (Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 ESV), “where people have the power to hurt each other”, and they do (Ecclesiastes 8:9 NLT).
GW5: Well of course there are still moral problems. Duh. There is more room for progress. This is why we need CUE, along with compliance with, application of, and enforcement of CUE.
RT5: God’s “commands make [one] wiser than . . . enemies”, “have more insight than . . . teachers”, “even wiser than . . . elders”, in fact, “those who love [God’s] instructions have great peace and do not stumble” (Psalm 119:98-100,163 NLT).
GW5: Pure nonsense! God does not exist. We know this. It has been proven. You are still caught in the quick sand of ancient superstition. I’ll throw you a rope so you can stand on the terra firma of the 21st century.
GW5: All your Christian musings are undermined by the Holocaust argument in which you have found no error. Here are some interesting estimates for you:
Note L: Responses to My Holocaust Argument and Estimates of Frequency: 5-29-2023
1. 40%: No response at all, failure to discuss
2. 20%: Disagreement, no attempt to find error, ad hominem or insult
3. 15%: Disagreement, no attempt to find error, attempts to prove God
4. 10%: Disagreement, attempt to find error, mention possible error, refuted
5. 5%: Agreement, partial
6. 5%: Agreement, total
7. 5%: Other response
You fall into the third category.
No, Bible prophecy is fulfilling. While some things have gotten better for some people, other things for many other people in the world have gotten worse, such as homelessness, displaced people and refugees. The disparity between the “haves” and “have nots” is as wide as ever, which causes and contributes to many other problems. “In the last days distressing times will come. For people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers,
profligates, brutes, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” (2 Timothy 3:1-5 NRSV).
Astronomy/physics/science has discovered and proven that the universe began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago, and that something cannot come from nothing (E=MC2). The Bible told us where/who the universe came from eons ago (Genesis 1:1).
What works in dealing with bad people is to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44 NIV).
RT6: Astronomy/physics/science has discovered and proven that the universe began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago,…
GW6: This is false. We’ve covered this many times. Nobody, including scientists, knows what occurred before the Big Bang roughly 13.7 billion years ago. When you use words like “discovered” and “proven” on this topic, you are either lying, delusional, or simply mistaken. Which is it?
RT6: and that something cannot come from nothing (E=MC2).
GW6: Most scientists and philosophers agree that something cannot come from nothing when nothing is properly defined as “the absence of anything and everything.” But the equation you cited does not reflect this idea. It reflects the transmutability of energy and matter.
RT6: The Bible told us where/who the universe came from eons ago (Genesis 1:1).
GW6: Yes, the Bible made a claim about this, and it is false and/or unproven. Although not yet known for certain, there are at least four good reasons why our universe is likely to be eternal:
1. The First Law of Thermodynamics: “Energy-matter can be neither created nor destroyed.” Since energy is the most basic component of our universe and it cannot be created, then it must be eternal.
2. Ockham’s Razor: “The simplest explanation is usually the best.” Or “The explanation with the fewest necessary assumptions is the most likely to be true.” Our universe exists, and assuming it to be eternal is the simplest explanation which entails the fewest assumptions. Assumptions not required are “The universe had a beginning.” “The beginning of the universe had a cause.” “God was the cause of the beginning of the universe.”
3. Rational Inference: Because each moment in time or each event, among trillions of them, since the Big Bang has been preceded by another, it is highly likely that the Big Bang itself was preceded by another moment in time or event, and that one by another, and by another, infinitum.
4. The Hume-Sagan Dictum: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” It is an extraordinary claim that the universe began to exist from nothing. No extraordinary evidence has yet been presented in support or confirmation of this extraordinary claim.
RT6: What works in dealing with bad people is to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44 NIV).
GW6: False. Are you kidding? You should not love people who intentionally harm you! That is wrong. You should not love people like Hitler, Stalin, and Trump.
GW6: And as Dan Barker has said “Nothing fails like prayer.” There is no good evidence that any prayer has ever worked in terms of influencing any deity to make any favorable intervention in any situation.
RT7: No, Bible prophecy is fulfilling.
GW7: Bible prophesy is totally irrelevant to this discussion on morality.
RT7: While some things have gotten better for some people, other things for many other people in the world have gotten worse, such as homelessness, displaced people and refugees.
GW7: On average, things have gotten better worldwide, but especially with respect to morality. You seem to be getting off track – focusing more on standards of living rather than on morality. The two examples I gave were specifically about progress in morality.
RT7: The disparity between the “haves” and “have nots” is as wide as ever, which causes and contributes to many other problems.
GW7: You need to relate disparity in living conditions somehow to morality. If you won’t, I will. Here is a relevant moral rule from CUE: On Paying Taxes: 5-18-2023:
“Any person X living in a community should pay his/her fair share of income taxes (and no other taxes) to the government of the community to support the common good of the community in terms of developmental and opportunity programs, as long as the government is a constitutional representative democracy. The fair share should be determined by a progressive curve, ranging from 1% for the lowest income to 100% for the highest income. (A workable example is 1% at $30K per year to 70% at $1 million per year and at 100% for any amount over $1 million per year, all in 2023 dollars ). The government may use force to implement this moral duty.”
GW7: Here is another relevant moral rule from CUE: On Working: 5-20-2023:
“Any adult person X should work to support themselves and their dependents, except when fully disabled. Even a partly disabled person should work at a job consistent with their abilities. The government should enure that every person, able to work and not retired, should have a job either in the private or public sector in a program of Universal Guaranteed Employment (UGE).”
RT7: “In the last days distressing times will come.
GW7: Belief in the “last days” described in the Bible is just a superstition. However, there could be last days which depend on real natural or social events, for example if a huge asteroid collided with the Earth or if there was an all-out nuclear war.
RT7: For people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money,…
GW7: People already value themselves, their lives and their well being, and money, of course. In fact there is nothing wrong with such valuing. It only becomes a problem when people break the rules of CUE.
RT7: boasters, arrogant, abusive,…
GW7: These are bad traits. Being abusive is prohibited in CUE.
RT7: disobedient to their parents,…
GW7: Children should be disobedient to their parents if those parents give immoral or illegal instruction or commands of if the parents are abusive to the children.
RT7: ungrateful, unholy,…
GW7: Everyone should be properly grateful to those who help them. Nobody is holy or unholy because God does not exist, and this has been proven.
RT7: inhuman,…
GW7: All humans are human by nature.
RT7: implacable, slanderers, profligates, brutes, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit,…
GW7: All of these are problematic traits and behaviors stemming from some of them would be prohibited by CUE.
RT: lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” (2 Timothy 3:1-5 NRSV).
GW: You failed to use NIV. By their nature human beings love pleasure. God does not exist, and this has been proven. A non-existing thing cannot be loved.
“I saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun. And behold, the tears of the oppressed, and they had no one to comfort them! On the side of their oppressors there was power, and there was no one to comfort them”—Ecclesiastes 4:1 ESV
We suggest you read the UN report done in in 2020–“Inequality In A Rapidly Changing World”, to more fully grasp the moral issues underlying this increasingly difficult problem.
RT8: “I saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun. And behold, the tears of the oppressed, and they had no one to comfort them! On the side of their oppressors there was power, and there was no one to comfort them”—Ecclesiastes 4:1 ESV
GW8: There have always been oppressors and oppressions since the beginning of humanity! Would this have been the case, if God did exist? One purpose of CUE is to minimize oppression.
GW8: But on the other hand, there have always been persons to comfort the oppressed.
RT8: We suggest you read the UN report done in in 2020–“Inequality In A Rapidly Changing World”, to more fully grasp the moral issues underlying this increasingly difficult problem.
GW8: Thanks for your suggestion. But how is this related to the existence of God and the need for CUE? I already know that there are problems in the world. Most of them would not exist, if God did exist. Why? Because he would prevent them. Correct Universal Ethics is needed to help reduce the problems we have. I even presented to you one CUE rule which would reduce wealth disparity in the world, if it were fully implemented.
GW8: You are still evading the main issue of our discussion. If God did exist, would he have prevented the Holocaust? If not, then for what morally justified reason?
Your CUE would not solve the problems of sin, evil, sickness, aging and death, etc (Romans 5:12). But God is much smarter and more powerful than humans (Isaiah 55:8,9), and will solve all these problems and more in his perfect timing (Isaiah 65:17; Revelation 21:1-4).
RT: Your CUE would not solve the problems of sin, evil, sickness, aging and death, etc (Romans 5:12).
GW: Straw man. Nobody has said that CUE would solve all those problems. If God did exist, would he solve all of them? Probably not. But he would have prevented all the horrible harms, like the Holocaust.
RT: But God is much smarter and more powerful than humans (Isaiah 55:8,9),…
GW: He certainly would be smarter and more powerful than humans, if he existed. And he would be perfectly moral too. He would comply with CUE 100% of the time! This is how we know that he would have prevented the Holocaust.
RT: and will solve all these problems and more in his perfect timing (Isaiah 65:17; Revelation 21:1-4).
GW: Who are you to decide what perfect timing is? For God, perfect timing would entail PREVENTING the Holocaust before it started! He would know when it would start. He would have sufficient power to prevent it. And he would be motivated to prevent it because he would be perfectly moral. Duh. Isn’t this obvious? You are mistaken about what perfect timing would be for God, if he existed. In fact you are far off the mark. I think you are thinking of some god other than God.
We are in control of this website, not you, or anyone else. We make the rules. If you don’t like the rules, then stay off this site. If you are willing to abide by the rules we set, you may continue to visit, and comment. Your deriding the rules will not be tolerated, do you understand?
The only God this website promotes is, “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob . . . who has glorified his servant Jesus” (Acts 3:13 NJB). You have deified secular humanism.
We don’t pretend to speak for Almighty God, as your comment implies, nor do we pretend to know his timetable, as you falsely allege. You’re the one with the “straw man” stuff.
As Jesus so aptly said to his disciples, “It is not for you to know the times or dates that the Father has decided by his own authority” (Acts 1:7 NJB).
RT: We don’t pretend to speak for Almighty God, as your comment implies, nor do we pretend to know his timetable, as you falsely allege.
GW: I am making an inference about timing which disagrees with your inference about timing. If God did exist, his timing for intervention with respect to the Holocaust would be BEFORE the Holocaust. But you said that God “WILL solve all these problems” which means that his timing for intervention with respect to the Holocaust WILL be in the future, not in the past. You are not speaking for God because God does not exist. You are not pretending to speak for God either since God does not exist. What you are doing is inferring the timing of God, partly based on your reading of some Bible verses which simply state the author’s inference about God’s timing. So, what we have here is a simple disagreement about what God would do, if he did exist. I am not falsely alleging anything. I am accurately alleging that you are guessing, speculating, or inferring about God’s timing.
RT: You’re the one with the “straw man” stuff.
GW: False. I have presented a steel man of your inference about God’s timing. You believe that God would time his intervention to be after the Holocaust and after today.
RT: As Jesus so aptly said to his disciples, “It is not for you to know the times or dates that the Father has decided by his own authority” (Acts 1:7 NJB).
GW: Yes, you don’t know! In fact, nobody can know anything about God since he does not exist! What you are doing is just speculating about what God would do and about his timing in doing things, if he did exist. I do the same thing, except my speculations are rational and yours are not. With respect to the Holocaust, God WOULD TIME HIS INTERVENTION to occur BEFORE the Holocaust, NOT AFTER. God would PREVENT the Holocaust, if he did exist, period.
RT: The only God this website promotes is, “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob . . . who has glorified his servant Jesus” (Acts 3:13 NJB).
GW: Do you believe in and promote belief in “God” according to the standard definition? Here it is: “God is 1) the hypothetical, unique, supernatural, independent, spiritual, normally invisible person, intelligent agent, or sentient entity. He is OMNI lasting (eternal), present, knowing, powerful, intelligent, rational, creative, and resilient (invincible). He is also OMNI loving, compassionate, and moral with respect to other persons. He fills the roles of cosmos designer and producer (creator), occasional interventionist in the world, and afterlife manager who decides the favorable or unfavorable disposition of human souls after they die. or 2) the greatest imaginable possible person (the “GIPPer”) who, if he existed, would surely be worthy of our greatest respect, admiration, and worship. Or 3) the hypothetical ideal person, intelligent agent, or sentient being, i.e. that possible person with all desirable traits to their highest degrees and with no undesirable traits.”
GW: If you do not believe in this “God,” then specify how the god you believe in differs from this one.
RT: You have deified secular humanism.
GW: Nonsense! Secular humanism is a worldview, not a god. Furthermore, secular humanism includes no belief in any god, including God or your lesser god.
We believe in God according to the Biblical definition, who is not just hypothetical, he is real. He’s always “invisible” (1 Timothy 1:17 NIV), “whom no one has seen or can see” (1 Timothy 6:16 NIV). He’s not just “powerful”, he’s “the Lord God Almighty” (Revelation 4:8).
RT: We believe in God according to the Biblical definition,…
GW: In what verse is the Biblical definition of “God” provided? Please state this definition so we may compare it to the standard definition which I have provided. Frankly, it appears that you believe in a god other than God, but let’s find out for sure. Present the definition you accept.
RT: who is not just hypothetical, he is real.
GW: False. God is not real, and this has been proven. However, the standard definition of “God” must be neutral on the issue of his existence, i.e. hypothetical.
RT: He’s always “invisible” (1 Timothy 1:17 NIV), “whom no one has seen or can see” (1 Timothy 6:16 NIV).
GW: The Bible has other verses which say or indicate that God was visible to human beings. Here are some for your review:
Genesis 18:1-2: “The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby.”
Exodus 24:9-11: “Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel… they saw God, and they ate and drank.”
Exodus 33:11: “The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend.”
Numbers 12:6-8: “When there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, reveal myself to them in visions, I speak to them in dreams. But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles.”
Isaiah 6:1-5: “In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple.”
Ezekiel 1:26-28: “Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him.”
Acts 7:55-56: “But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. ‘Look,’ he said, ‘I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.'”
GW: Therefore, the best interpretation from the Bible is that God would be “normally invisible” as stated in the standard definition. Although God would be invisible most of the time, because he would be all-powerful and perfectly moral, he would sometimes make himself visible in order to achieve some goal.
RT: He’s not just “powerful”, he’s “the Lord God Almighty” (Revelation 4:8).
GW: If he did exist, God would be OMNI powerful or all-powerful, as indicated in the standard definition. This seems to be equivalent to “Almighty.”
One of the last books of the that written says definitively that, “NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN GOD” (1 John 4:8 NIV). According to Genesis 18:1-3; 19:12,15; Hebrews 13:2, the “three men” who visited Abraham were “angels”, one of whom represented “Yahweh” (Genesis 18:22). Exodus 24:11 (EB) says that “they had a vision of God”. Yahweh God told Moses, “no one see me and live” (Exodus 33:20 NIV). Isaiah, Ezekiel and Stephen also had visions of God. “God . . . does not lie”, his “word is truth”, and thus there are no contradictions in the Bible.
RT: One of the last books of the that written says definitively that, “NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN GOD” (1 John 4:8 NIV).
GW: So what? I presented seven verses that contradict the verses you have presented on the factor of visibility. Furthermore, it is rational that if God did exist, he would sometimes make himself visible to accomplish some special goal. We can easily conclude just from this single issue that if God did exist, he did not write, dictate, or inspire the Bible. There are just too many contradictory verses in it. So, we are reading the conflicting verses written by fallible men.
GW: In fact, if God did exist, if he would make himself visible for those special revelations I have described to you previously. For review:
If God did exist, because of his nature (especially because he would be all-powerful and perfectly moral) he would communicate with human persons (and any other persons in the cosmos) ONLY in the following manner:
1. The revelations would be frequent and/or regular. At a minimum God would deliver a revelation at least once every 15 years which is considered a “generation” in the human sense.
2. In a revelation God would identify himself as “God,” but he would appear as a kind middle-aged woman to help people feel comfortable. Although God would normally be invisible, for these revelations he would make himself clearly visible.
3. God would perform at least three miracles in order to verify his identity.
4. God would give morally justified reasons for allowing or causing at least three horrible harms in the cosmos (or on Earth) in order to verify his identity.
5. God would present his moral code and the consequences for compliance and noncompliance.
6. God would answer questions from his audience, at least ten questions.
7. The revelation would be like a press conference and would last just 2-3 hours so that listeners would maintain interest and not become bored or drowsy.
8. God would present orally; he would speak. But at the end of his speech he would distribute printed or digital copies of his speech to everyone who wanted a copy.
9. God would speak in one language, the most popular language in the cosmos, whatever that would be, but God would ensure that everyone heard his speech in their native or primary language.
10. God’s speech would be clear, concise, and easy to understand.
11. God’s communication would be unambiguous, unequivocal, consistent, precise, specific, and rational. (If necessary, God would enhance some persons’ intelligence or ability to comprehend.)
12. God would speak to all persons in the cosmos at the same time. He would speak to theists, atheists, agnostics, polytheists, indeed all persons. Nobody would be left behind.
13. God’s communication would be objective, not subjective. All persons would see and hear God at the same time.
14. God’s speech would be simulcast over all TV, radio, internet, and streaming media.
15. God would not use intermediaries, assistants, messengers, or prophets. He would always do his own work – his own communication. He would know that this would reduce the probability of confusion, error, mistakes, and disagreement to zero.
RT: According to Genesis 18:1-3; 19:12,15; Hebrews 13:2, the “three men” who visited Abraham were “angels”, one of whom represented “Yahweh” (Genesis 18:22).
GW: This is irrelevant, irrational, and false. We aren’t talking here about the visibility of angels; we are talking about the visibility of God, if he did exist. Secondly, God would not use messengers or intermediaries, as I’ve told you before. You know why.
RT: Exodus 24:11 (EB) says that “they had a vision of God”.
GW: So what? Maybe they had a visual hallucination of God, similar to the auditory hallucination of Jesus as Paul had on the road to Damascus. In addition, one or two of the disciples probably had grief hallucinations of Jesus after the crucifixion, as I described in my published article:
Whittenberger, Gary. “On Visions and Resurrections: Can Hallucination
Account for the Post-Crucifixion Appearances of Jesus?” Skeptic.
Vol. 17, No. 1, 2011, Pg. 40-45.
RT: Yahweh God told Moses, “no one see me and live” (Exodus 33:20 NIV).
GW: My cited verses contradict your cited verses on this issue. So we must turn to reason to reach the proper conclusion: If God did exist, he would normally be invisible, but would make himself visible to achieve his important goals.
RT: Isaiah, Ezekiel and Stephen also had visions of God.
GW: Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. It’s irrelevant to our issue here.
RT: “God . . . does not lie”, his “word is truth”,…
GW: If God did exist, he would follow the CUE rule on lying: “Any person X should not lie to any other person Y, except when it is necessary to protect X or a third party Z from serious injury or death.” God would be perfectly moral, as indicated in the standard definition.
RT: and thus there are no contradictions in the Bible.
GW: Nonsense. We have each presented Bible verses that are contradictory. Are you also going to say that God caused Donald Trump to win the 2020 election?
GW: Another valid argument:
1. If God did exist, then he would prevent the publication and dissemination of any documents under his name which would include contradictions.
2. The Bible is a publication, widely disseminated, under the name of God which includes contradictions.
3. Either the Bible is not the word of God or God does not exist or both.
The Bible is very clear: “The King eternal . . . the only God” is “invisible”, “who lives in unapproachable light, whom NO ONE HAS SEEN OR CAN SEE” (1 Timothy 1:17 NIV; 6:16 NIV). “He permitted all nations to go their own ways, but HE NEVER LEFT THEM WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF HIMSELF AND HIS GOODNESS” (Acts 14:16,17 NLT).
“Do you still want to argue with the Almighty? You are God’s critic, but do you have the answers?”—Job 40:2,3 NIV
Since you know so much, how you answer the questions God posed in Job 38 & 39?
We don’t know God’s timetable. Jesus said he didn’t even know (Matthew:36; Mark 13:32). The Bible says “that the whole world is under the control of the evil one” (1 John 5:19 NIV). The good news is that “Satan, the ruler of this world, will be cast out” (John 12:31 NLT).
RT: We don’t know God’s timetable.
GW: Well of course, you don’t know God’s timetable! How could you? God does not exist, and this has been proven. However, as I showed last round, you have predicted WHEN God would respond to the Holocaust based on your adoption or interpretation of Biblical authors. You predicted that he would respond in the future. In contrast I predicted that he would respond before the Holocaust. He would PREVENT the Holocaust, if he existed. But the Holocaust occurred anyway. Therefore, God does not exist. Isn’t this obvious?
GW: You have BELIEFS about the hypothetical God’s timetable, although they are very vague beliefs, related mainly to BEFORE and AFTER.
RT: Jesus said he didn’t even know (Matthew:36; Mark 13:32).
GW: Jesus is not an author of any book of the Bible. Some of the actual authors made statements about God’s timing, and you even cited some of them. The problem is that these authors and now you are mistaken.
RT: The Bible says “that the whole world is under the control of the evil one” (1 John 5:19 NIV).
GW: If God did exist, he would be in charge of the whole world, and not anyone else. Are you kidding? God would be all-powerful and would not let anyone else control anything, period. I don’t think you believe in God. Apparently, you believe in a lesser god.
RT: The good news is that “Satan, the ruler of this world, will be cast out” (John 12:31 NLT).
GW: Notice the word “will” in this verse. This is another prediction of a Biblical author about God’s timing, and of course it is mistaken. Also, nobody has proven that Satan even exists. If God did exist, Satan would not exist! God wouldn’t put up with an “evil one.” Either God would not create him to start with or would destroy him after his first evil act. Duh.
Since “all [God’s] ways are perfect”, and “all the angels [including the one who later became Satan] shouted for joy” when God created the earth (Deuteronomy 32:4 NIV; Job 38:7 NIV), it is obvious that God did not create Satan. The angel who became Satan was “blameless in [his] ways from the day [he] was created till wickedness was found in [him]” (Ezekiel 28:15 NIV). God has allowed him to continue to exist for a time so as to accomplish God’s purposes (compare Exodus 9:16; Romans 9:17).
RT: Since “all [God’s] ways are perfect”, and “all the angels [including the one who later became Satan] shouted for joy” when God created the earth (Deuteronomy 32:4 NIV; Job 38:7 NIV), it is obvious that God did not create Satan.
GW: If God did exist, yes, his ways would be perfect (although that idea needs more explanation). But he would not create angels, and thus angels would not exist. He would have no use for angels; he could and would do all the work himself. Yes, if God did exist, he would not create Satan.
RT: The angel who became Satan was “blameless in [his] ways from the day [he] was created till wickedness was found in [him]” (Ezekiel 28:15 NIV).
GW: I know this fallacious fairy tale. But if God did exist, he would know what any angel would become since God would be omniscient. Duh. So, if God knew BEFOREHAND that this angel would become evil, like Satan is alleged to be, then God would not create that angel. Another possibility is that God would destroy Satan immediately when he “went bad.”
RT: God has allowed him to continue to exist for a time so as to accomplish God’s purposes (compare Exodus 9:16; Romans 9:17).
GW: But God would PREVENT Satan from existing, just as he would PREVENT the Holocaust. You are talking about your own personal god, not about God.
GW: You are evading my request to present your “Biblical definition of God.” This is disappointing, but not surprising.
RT: The Bible is very clear: “The King eternal . . . the only God” is “invisible”, “who lives in unapproachable light, whom NO ONE HAS SEEN OR CAN SEE” (1 Timothy 1:17 NIV; 6:16 NIV).
GW: It is very clear that the Bible includes contradictory verses about the issue of God’s visibility. Isn’t this obvious? Yes it is!
RT: “He permitted all nations to go their own ways, but HE NEVER LEFT THEM WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF HIMSELF AND HIS GOODNESS” (Acts 14:16,17 NLT).
GW: Yes, according to some verses God made himself visible to some people at some times so that “he never left them without evidence of himself.” That is the story. Of course, now we know better. We know that God does not exist, and this has been proven by many arguments, including my own Holocaust argument, in which you have still found and will never find an error.
GW: Also, you still haven’t presented your “Biblical definition of God.” For an example of an excellent definition of God, I give you this: “God is 1) the hypothetical, unique, supernatural, independent, spiritual, normally invisible person, intelligent agent, or sentient entity. He is OMNI lasting (eternal), present, knowing, powerful, intelligent, rational, creative, and resilient (invincible). He is also OMNI loving, compassionate, and moral with respect to other persons. He fills the roles of cosmos designer and producer (creator), occasional interventionist in the world, and afterlife manager who decides the favorable or unfavorable disposition of human souls after they die. or 2) the greatest imaginable possible person (the “GIPPer”) who, if he existed, would surely be worthy of our greatest respect, admiration, and worship. Or 3) the hypothetical ideal person, intelligent agent, or sentient being, i.e. that possible person with all desirable traits to their highest degrees and with no undesirable traits.” Present your definition and we shall compare it to the standard definition.
RT: “Do you still want to argue with the Almighty? You are God’s critic, but do you have the answers?”—Job 40:2,3 NIV
GW: Nobody can argue with God. Why? Because he doesn’t exist. This has been proven. Duh.
RT: Since you know so much, how would you answer the questions God posed in Job 38 & 39?
GW: I do know a great deal about the God hypothesis. Present three of the questions from Job and I will be happy to answer them. Be specific.
“Have you explored the springs from which the seas come? Have you explored their depths?”—Job 38:16 NLT
“Where does the light come from, and where does the darkness go?”—Job 38:19 NLT
“Do you know the laws of the universe? Can you use them to regulate the earth?”—Job 38:31 NLT
RT: “Have you explored the springs from which the seas come? Have you explored their depths?”—Job 38:16 NLT
GW: I have not, but scientists have done that. Homo sapiens is a curious species with the capacity for reason. Scientists have increased our knowledge of reality and will continue to do so.
RT: Where does the light come from, and where does the darkness go?”—Job 38:19 NLT
GW: The light comes from our Sun, a burning ball of gasses. The darkness occurs because of the rotation of the Earth.
RT: “Do you know the laws of the universe? Can you use them to regulate the earth?—Job 38:31 NLT
GW: I know some of the laws of the universe, but scientists know even more. Yes, humans can used the laws of the universe to regulate the Earth, e.g. the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature of the air and water, the sea level, etc.
GW: You still did not acknowledge that the Bible has contradictory verses on the visibility of God. Why not?
GW: You still did not provide your so-called “Biblical definition of God.” Where is it?
GW: You still did not specify what morally justified reason God would have to allow the Holocaust, if he existed. Where is it?
“They have rejected the word of the LORD [Yahweh], so what wisdom do they really have?”—Jeremiah 8:9 HCSB
Humans have not ‘regulated’ the CO2 level, nor the temperature of the air and the water, of the earth. They have foolishly spewed pollutants into earth’s air and water, causing the natural, balanced level of CO2 of earth’s air and water temperature to rise dramaticatically, which, in turn, has caused innumerable problems for the earth and its inhabitants.
We have explained to you and proven that there are NO CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE, and that verything in it is “true” (John 17:17).
RT: “They have rejected the word of the LORD [Yahweh], so what wisdom do they really have?”—Jeremiah 8:9 HCSB
GW: There is no “word of the LORD.” There is no good evidence that God has ever communicated directly to any human beings. Also, we now know that God doesn’t even exist. This had been proven by numerous arguments, including my Holocaust argument.
RT: Humans have not ‘regulated’ the CO2 level, nor the temperature of the air and the water, of the earth. They have foolishly spewed pollutants into earth’s air and water, causing the natural, balanced level of CO2 of earth’s air and water temperature to rise dramaticatically, which, in turn, has caused innumerable problems for the earth and its inhabitants.
GW: Humans have indeed regulated all those things in a negative or harmful way. So, your claim is refuted.
RT: We have explained to you and proven that there are NO CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE, and that verything in it is “true” (John 17:17).
GW: False. I presented verses showing that God was thought to be sometimes visible by some Bible authors and you presented verses showing that God was thought to be constantly invisible by some Bible authors. These verses are in direct contradiction, even if you do not understand this. Just like Trump’s claim that he won the 2020 election is in contradiction to the state voting results.
GW: You still did not provide your so-called “Biblical definition of God.” Where is it?
GW: You still did not specify what morally justified reason God would have to allow the Holocaust, if he existed. Where is it?