THE EVIDENCE PROVES GOD’S EXISTENCE
“Even when walking in the street the fool, lacking understanding, calls everyone a fool”—Ecclesiastes 10:3 NAB
BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY REQUIRES LESS FAITH TO BELIEVE IN THAN ATHEISM
While Christians are often derided for their seemingly “blind faith” in the Creator/God’s existence, the facts give powerful evidence the Biblical Creator/God is real.
The overwhelming scientific evidence confirms the essential truths of the “Big Bang”. In just the last 100 years, scientists, such as cosmologists and astronomers, have been forced by their very own discoveries to admit the universe had a beginning, which harmonizes with what the Bible stated as fact thousands of years ago. For example:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”—Genesis 1:1
“By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what is visible”—Hebrews 11:3 NIV
All the ancient pagan creation myths said the universe was made out of pre-existing material. Only the Bible said it was made out of nothing that was visible.
“Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything”—Hebrews 3:4 NIV
This illustration of a house giving evidence of a builder is very logical. Likewise, the very highly organized and finely-tuned universe gives overwhelming evidence of a creator.
“This is what God the LORD [Yahweh] says–the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out”—Isaiah 42:5 NIV
The Bible, 2,700 years ago, seems to refer to the expansion of the universe. Astronomers have discovered the universe is expanding at the exact speed necessary to continue its existence eternally.
“He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing”—Job 26:7 NIV
How could Job know this 3,500 years ago, when all the pagan fables said the earth was held up by something else?
“He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth”—Isaiah 40:22 NIV
How could Isaiah know the earth was round, when all the worldly wise people said it was flat?
After COBE found proof of the variations in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which provide further solid evidence of the “Big Bang”, the project leader, astronomer George Smoot, said, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.” University of Chicago astronomer Michael Turner said, “the significance of this cannot be overstated. They have found the Holy Grail of Cosmology.” The temperature variations are so exactly in harmony with the “Big Bang” that Smoot called them the “machining parts of the universe” and the “fingerprints of the maker.”
To be an atheist, one has to deny and/or ignore the enormous evidence of a Creator. “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1). It takes a lot of “blind faith” to be in such denial!
68 thoughts on “THE EVIDENCE PROVES GOD’S EXISTENCE”
RT1: BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY REQUIRES LESS FAITH TO BELIEVE IN THAN ATHEISM
GW1: Atheism is not a worldview, whereas Christianity is. Atheism requires no faith at all, whereas Christianity is built entirely on faith. What is faith? Faith is belief untuned to or misaligned with evidence and/or logic, and usually tuned to or aligned solely or primarily with authority, majority opinion, peer pressure, tradition, intuition, wishes, or some combination of these.
GW1: Christianity is built primarily on two beliefs: God exists and Jesus came back to life. If both of these are not true, then Christianity collapses. They are both based on faith, not reason.
RT1: While Christians are often derided for their seemingly “blind faith” in God’s existence, the facts prove the Biblical Creator/God to be real.
GW1: Faith disregards pertinent evidence. You have not proven that God exists.
RT1: The overwhelming scientific evidence confirms the essential truths of the “Big Bang”.
GW1: We have agreed on the fact of the Big Bang many times, but we disagree on the interpretation of the facts.
RT1: In just the last 100 years, scientists, such as cosmologists and astronomers, have been forced by their very own discoveries to admit the universe had a beginning, which harmonizes with what the Bible stated as fact thousands of years ago.
GW1: You are about 30 years behind in your knowledge of cosmology. “The cyclic model of the universe challenges this point of view, suggesting that the big bang was not the beginning of time but rather a violent transition between two stages of cosmic evolution, with a ‘before’ and an ‘after’. In fact, according to the cyclic model, the big bang in our past was caused by a strange substance that is now starting to take over the universe and that will eventually lead to the next big bang in our future, and the one after that.” P. 38. “Hawking and Penrose’s finding was widely interpreted as theoretical proof that space and time must have a ‘beginning.’ That interpretation, however, was never justified. What they really proved is that Einstein’s equations become mathematically inconsistent at the big bang itself.” P. 185. From Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang, by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok. New York: Doubleday, 2007.
RT1: For example: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”—Genesis 1:1
GW1: God does not exist. We now know this. The author of Genesis never describes the Big Bang or evolution. If he had been inspired by an existing God, he would have included these descriptions in Genesis.
RT1: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what is visible”—Hebrews 11:3 NIV
GW1: God does not exist. We now know this. Also, faith is a vice, not a virtue.
RT1: “Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything”—Hebrews 3:4 NIV
GW1: The universe is not a house. An analogy can yield hypotheses, but cannot confirm them.
RT1: “This is what God the LORD [Yahweh] says–the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out”—Isaiah 42:5 NIV
GW1: Stretches what out? God does not exist. We now know this.
RT1: “He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing”—Job 26:7 NIV
GW1: What about the southern, western, and eastern skies? The use of the term “over” reveals the ancient belief in a flat Earth. The Earth is just one planet in space not filled with “nothing” but with energy-matter, including suns, planets, moons, asteroids, and black holes. Genesis presents an inaccurate description of the universe. This is how we know that it was never written, dictated by, or inspired by God. God does not exist.
RT1: “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth”—Isaiah 40:22 NIV
GW1: More reference to the flat Earth model popular a few thousand years ago.
RT1: After COBE found proof of the variations in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which provide further solid evidence of the “Bib Bang”, the project leader, astronomer George Smoot, said, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.”
GW1: If you are not religious, it’s like you are looking at evidence for the Big Bang. It you are not religious, it provides no good reason to become religious.
RT1: University of Chicago astronomer Michael Turner said, “the significance of this cannot be overstated. They have found the Holy Grail of Cosmology.”
GW1: He’s just making an analogy about significance.
RT1: The temperature variations are so exactly in harmony with the “Big Bang” that Smoot called them the “machining parts of the universe” and the “fingerprints of the maker.”
GW1: COBE was evidence for the Big Bang. There is no doubt about that. But Smoot is just showing his religious biases here. As we have discussed before, there are at least these six hypotheses:
1) The Big Bang was merely a transition event in an eternal universe.
2) The Big Bang occurred spontaneously without cause.
3) There was an unknown natural cause of the Big Bang.
4) An unknown powerful alien caused the Big Bang.
5) An unknown powerful god (but not God) caused the Big Bang.
6) God caused the Big Bang.
There is no dispositive or conclusive evidence which nails down any of these hypotheses. However, #1 and #3 are most likely correct. There are more reasons to support them than the others. #6 must be incorrect. We now know that God does not exist.
GW1: You haven’t even come close to proving that God exists. We know from other arguments that God does not exist.
Atheism is a worldview
False. Secular humanism and Christianity are worldviews, but atheism is not. Atheism is the absence of beliefs in gods. There are three core beliefs of Christianity — God exists, Jesus came back to life, and Jesus died for our sins.
A worldview is defined as “a set of beliefs and assumptions that a person uses when relating and interpreting the world around him,” and also “The overall perspective from which one sees the world. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or group.” Therefore, atheism is definetely a worldview! “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1; see also 53:1 NIV).
RT: A worldview is defined as “a set of beliefs and assumptions that a person uses when relating and interpreting the world around him,” and also “The overall perspective from which one sees the world. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or group.”
GW: Those are pretty good general definitions, but they do not enumerate the categories of beliefs which a worldview must contain. These categories are metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.
RT: Therefore, atheism is definetely a worldview!
GW: Identify one ethical belief of atheism and show that it is stated in a doctrine of belief for atheists.
GW: Identify ANY belief at all of atheism.
RT: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1; see also 53:1 NIV).
GW: Atheism is a philosophical position, not a worldview, in which adherents do not have any beliefs in any gods. There are some atheists, like me, who do believe that God does not exist, but that is not the essence of atheism. In fact, most atheists do not believe that God does not exist.
GW: It is irrational to believe that any god exists. Why? Because the evidence is insufficient. However, we can be more assertive about some gods. We now know that one god, i.e. God, does not exist. This has been proven. So far, you have just evaded my detailed argument for this.
Proof Against the Existence of God Based on COVID: The Long Version (7-21-2021, Refined 12-13-2021, Gary Whittenberger)
1. Definition: God is the hypothetical supernatural, unique, independent, eternal, invulnerable, everywhere-present, all-knowing, perfectly rational, all-powerful, perfectly moral person or intelligent agent who created the cosmos, sometimes intervenes in our world, and assigns human persons to different desirable or undesirable conditions after they die.*
2. If God did exist, then he would be all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly moral. These are the three traditional omni-traits attributed to God, which are most relevant in the current context.
3. Definition: “All-knowing” is the hypothetical trait of a person or intelligent agent who knows everything which can possibly be known about anything and everything; having complete accurate knowledge of all facts, including about the past, the present, and the future and about the laws of nature. The exception would be that this trait would not include knowing anything which is logically impossible to know.
4. Definition: “All-powerful” is the hypothetical trait of a person or intelligent agent who is capable of doing anything which is logically possible to do.
5. Definition: “Perfectly moral” is the hypothetical trait of a person or intelligent agent who behaves morally 100% of the time or in 100% of the opportunities.
6. Definition: “Moral” is the condition of behaving in respectful, cooperative, compassionate, just, and reasonable ways towards other persons and behaving in compliance with moral rules comprising Correct Universal Ethics (CUE).
7. The CUE moral rule pertinent to prevention is this: Person X should attempt to prevent any moderate to severe harm H1 to any person Y or group of persons Z, if and only if 1) X certainly or probably knows about the opportunity to help by prevention, 2) X is certainly or probably able to prevent the harm, 3) X will certainly or probably not die in the prevention attempt, 4) X will certainly or probably not be permanently injured in the prevention attempt, 5) X will certainly or probably not suffer greatly in the prevention attempt, 6) allowing H1 is probably or certainly not necessary to preventing greater harm H2, and 7) allowing H1 is probably or certainly not necessary to producing a benefit B which outweighs the harm H1. Any person X has a moral duty to attempt to prevent harm H1 if all seven of these contingencies are satisfied. Persons are moral if they attempt to prevent a moderate to severe harm when all seven relevant specific contingencies are met; otherwise they are immoral.
8. Definition: The COVID-19 Pandemic occurring in the period 2019-2022 is a set of harms which is current, severe, widespread, and indiscriminate. As of 5-24-2022, just in the US alone there have been 83,145,591 cases of the disease and 999,384 deaths from it. The COVID-19 Pandemic is a severe harm.
Source: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days
9. If God did exist, then because he would be all-knowing he would certainly know about the opportunity to help human persons by preventing the pandemic.
10. If God did exist, because he would be all-powerful he would certainly be able to prevent the pandemic.
11. If God did exist, because he would be all-powerful, invulnerable, and eternal he would certainly not die, be permanently injured, or suffer greatly in any attempt to prevent the pandemic.
12. If God did exist, because he would be all-powerful his allowing the pandemic would certainly not be necessary to prevent some greater harm. God would be able to prevent any greater harm without allowing the pandemic. The laws of necessity or nature which apply to human persons would not apply to God.
13. If God did exist, because he would be all-powerful his allowing the pandemic would certainly not be necessary to produce some benefit which outweighs the pandemic. God would be able to produce any benefit without allowing the pandemic. The laws of necessity or nature which apply to human persons would not apply to God.
14. Thus, if God did exist, because he would be all-knowing, all-powerful, invulnerable, and eternal, he would satisfy all seven contingencies of the CUE moral rule pertinent to prevention of the COVID-19 Pandemic.
15. And if God did exist, because he would be perfectly moral he would conform to the CUE moral rule pertinent to prevention and would have prevented the COVID-19 Pandemic. It would not exist.
16. However, the COVID-19 Pandemic does exist.
17. Therefore, God does not exist.
*Note 1: The word “God” is the proper name for this one specific god, just like “Thomas Jefferson” is the name for one specific man and US president.
*Note 2: Most of the 2.4 billion Christians, most of the 1.9 billion Muslims, and about half of the 14 million Jews in the world believe that this specific god exists.
*Note 3: Sometimes God is also conceived to be all-loving, omni-benevolent, perfectly good, perfectly caring, perfectly righteous, or perfectly just. All these traits can be simply subsumed under ‘perfectly moral.’
Yahweh is “the Creator of the heavens.” (Isaiah 42:5 NIV). This corrects the misquote.
There is no good evidence that any god created “the heavens” or the universe. And we now know that God does not exist. This has been proven. I have even presented to you one of the proofs, and you have found no error. You have not even responded to it.
The only way to know what good is, is for there to be an objective standard of good beyond oneself. But the existence of evil doesn’t disprove God. The atheistic claim that the existence of evil proves there is no Almighty God, is something atheists haven’t thought out very well. Why not? If God eliminated all evil, he would have eliminate us also. Why? Because we all do evil. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 6:23). The source of evil is free choice. If God eliminated all evil, he would have to eliminate free choice. If he eliminated free choice, we would no longer have the ability to love or do good, and this would no longer be a moral world. Why do natural disasters occur? As a direct result the first humans breaking God’s commandment to obey him, ignoring his clear warning (Genesis 2:15-17; 3:1-23). “Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12 NIV). God has very kindly thrown us a “liferope” out of this predicament to grasp onto, if we’re willing. “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23 NIV).
Yes, I agree with you on this point. So, with respect to evidence about the issue we are discussing, what would “good” evidence be? Describe it.
General Relativity has been proven accurate out to five decimal points, which is as accurate as humans can possibly figure! General relativity has forced cosmologists to admit that there was a definite beginning to all time, all matter, and all space. The universe is expanding exactly as General Relativity predicted. General Relativity supports what is one of the oldest formal arguments for the existence of a theistic God–the Cosmological Argument. This is the argument from the beginning of the universe. In its logical form, it is expressed this way:
1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
Everything that had a beginning had a cause, which is the Law of Causality, which is the fundamental principle of science. Without the Law of Causality, science is impossible, because science is a search for causes. This is what scientists do–they try to find out what caused what. Science and common sense both tell us that things don’t happen without a cause. To deny the Law of Causality is to deny rationality. If anyone asserts that they don’t believe in the Law of Causality, we have the right to ask: “What caused you to come to that conclusion?” Thousands of years ago, the Bible accurately identified this cause. “From everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Psalm 90:2 NIV). Both science and the Bible tell us that the universe is not expanding into empty space, but space itself is expanding–there was no space before the Big Bang. “The LORD [Yahweh], who stretches out the heavens” (Zechariah 12:1 NIV). “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).
RT: General Relativity has been proven accurate out to five decimal points, which is as accurate as humans can possibly figure!
GW: False. Accuracy can be determined to more than five decimal points. General Relativity is just a fact about the orderliness of the universe. So what? You mistakenly think this order was caused to occur by God. We know God does not exist. See my argument.
RT: General relativity has forced cosmologists to admit that there was a definite beginning to all time, all matter, and all space.
GW: False. We’ve been over this many times, and you just don’t seem to get it. Any fact about the universe does not “force” anybody to conclude that the universe had a beginning to its existence! There was a beginning to the expansion of our universe, but this does not necessarily mean it was a beginning to the existence of the universe. You are jumping to a conclusion which you WISH were true. That’s faith for you.
RT: The universe is expanding exactly as General Relativity predicted. General Relativity supports what is one of the oldest formal arguments for the existence of a theistic God–the Cosmological Argument.
GW: You are just giving an improbable explanation for cosmological facts. You hypothesize that the universe began to exist, had a cause, and the cause was God (your particular god). As I have shown, that is one of about six hypotheses, the most improbable of the lot. And it violates Occam’s Razor.
RT: This is the argument from the beginning of the universe. In its logical form, it is expressed this way:
1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
GW: This is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It has been around for centuries and popularized recently by William Lane Craig. It has been refuted already.
RT: Everything that had a beginning had a cause, which is the Law of Causality, which is the fundamental principle of science.
GW: Are there no events which had no cause? Is it impossible for an event to not have a cause? I think some scientists have shown that some events don’t have causes, e.g. events in radioactive decay. Nevertheless, I believe premise #1 is pretty sound, if not true in every case.
RT: Without the Law of Causality, science is impossible, because science is a search for causes. This is what scientists do–they try to find out what caused what. Science and common sense both tell us that things don’t happen without a cause. To deny the Law of Causality is to deny rationality.
GW: False. Science can search for causes and will find them in most cases. An orderly world in which causation occurs enables us to do science, but it may be possible that some events occur without causes and other events occur with causes which will never be discovered.
RT: If anyone asserts that they don’t believe in the Law of Causality, we have the right to ask: “What caused you to come to that conclusion?”
GW: I believe that all human decisions and behaviors have a cause. If you do also, then you are a determinist with respect to humans. I am surprised that you would think so.
RT: Thousands of years ago, the Bible accurately identified this cause. “From everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Psalm 90:2 NIV).
GW: This is just a claim that God exists. We already agree that if God did exist, he would be eternal. But we have proven that this biblical claim is false.
RT: Both science and the Bible tell us that the universe is not expanding into empty space, but space itself is expanding–there was no space before the Big Bang.
GW: That makes no sense at all. There was a primordial particle of energy prior to the Big Bang. This particle existed in space, so there was space prior to the BB.
RT: “The LORD [Yahweh], who stretches out the heavens” (Zechariah 12:1 NIV).
GW: Many persons, including myself, have proven that God does not exist, and so Zechariah was mistaken.
RT: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).
GW: Since this very first verse of the Bible is false, all other verses in the Bible which refer to God are also false! You are still evading my argument. I wish you’d try to poke holes in my argument so we can have a useful debate. You are just bringing up tired old cosmological arguments which have been repeatedly refuted.
Both science and the Bible agree that all time, all space and all matter exploded out of nothing. “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Hebrews 11:3 NIV). Atheists are trapped in self-contradiction, when they attempt to explain how the universe could come into existence, uncaused by nothing. “Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything” (Hebrews 3:4 NIV).
RT: Both science and the Bible agree that all time, all space and all matter exploded out of nothing.
GW: That is just false. Neither does. If you disagree, please provide direct quotes to support your position.
RT: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Hebrews 11:3 NIV).
GW: This quote contradicts your claim. If God did exist and made a command, that would be an act in time. It is possible for existing energy-matter to be invisible to the human naked eye. Faith is a vice, not a virtue. And it has been proven that God does not exist.
RT: Atheists are trapped in self-contradiction, when they attempt to explain how the universe could come into existence, uncaused by nothing.
GW: I am one of the atheists who claims that the universe is eternal and did not come into existence out of nothing. So, your claim does not apply to me.
RT: “Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything” (Hebrews 3:4 NIV).
GW: This is just an analogy that doesn’t work. The universe was nothing like a house during about 13.6 billion years before human beings evolved. It has already been proven that God does not exist. Furthermore, an eternal universe requires no beginning and no builder.
Even the great skeptic David Hume could not deny the Law of Causality. He wrote, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause.”
In a way he did! Hume said that you cannot infer causation from correlation, even if the correlation is perfect.
But his opinion doesn’t matter to our discussion. I have agreed that most events have causes.
If atheism were true, there must be a natural explanation of what caused the universe. Scientists and philosophers recognize there must be a cause that would be sufficient to bring about matter and the universe–and yet no natural cause is known. The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms says that “causality” in physics, is the principle that an event cannot precede its cause” (2003 p. 346). However, the atheist must concede that in order for his/her claim to be valid, the effect of the universe not only preceded its cause, but actually came about without it! Such a viewpoint is hardly in keeping with science. Scientifically speaking, according to the Law of Cause and Effect, there had to be a Cause for the universe. The book in existence which gives the characteristics that prove its production to human capability is the Bible. The Biblical Almighty God is its author, who used human secretaries to write down what he wanted (2 Timothy 3:16,17; 2 Peter 1:20,21). In Genesis 1:1, Hebrews 3:4 and Revelation 4:8,11, he clearly stated that he is the cause who brought the universe into existence
RT: If atheism were true, there must be a natural explanation of what caused the universe.
GW: Your knowledge of atheism is still deficient. Atheism is not a claim that can be true or false. But, “God exists” is a claim that can be true or false, and it has been proven that it is false.
GW: I am an atheist and I claim that the universe did not have a beginning or a cause; it is eternal. That is the best explanation of all the alternatives.
RT: Scientists and philosophers recognize the must be a cause that would be sufficient to bring about matter and the universe–and yet no natural cause is known.
GW: Scientists and philosophers are very divided on this issue; there is no consensus yet. I think the best explanation is that the universe did not have a beginning or a cause; it is eternal. As I have said to you many times, there are two good reasons in support of this conclusion – The First Law of Thermodynamics and Occam’s Razor.
RT: The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms says that “causality” in physics, is the principle that an event cannot precede its cause” (2003 p. 346).
GW: I agree. This is true by definition. A cause C is an event. An effect E is an event. If C, then E. If not C, then not E. But as far as we know, an event alleged to be the beginning of the existence of the universe never occurred. No effect, no cause.
RT: However, the atheist must concede that in order for his/her claim to be valid, the effect of the universe not only preceded its cause, but actually came about without it!
GW: This is nonsense. What claim are you claiming that all atheists make? Here it is: “I do not believe in the existence of any gods.” The claim is true as long as the atheist is being honest. This has nothing at all to do with the universe.
RT: Such a viewpoint is hardly in keeping with science. Scientifically speaking, according to the Law of Cause and Effect, there had to be a Cause for the universe.
GW: No, there didn’t. If the universe had no beginning to its existence, then it is not an effect requiring a cause. I don’t know why you don’t understand this.
RT: The book in existence which gives the characteristics that prove its production to human capability is the Bible. The Biblical Almighty God is its author, who used human secretaries to write down what he wanted (2 Timothy 3:16,17; 2 Peter 1:20,21).
GW: False. If God did exist and he dictated the Bible, it wouldn’t have any errors. But it has lots of errors! Therefore, the Bible wasn’t dictated by God. The first error is the first verse which you already quoted. The fact that God does not exist shows that the first verse is in error.
RT: In Genesis 1:1, Hebrews 3:4 and Revelation 4:8,11, he clearly stated that he is the cause who brought the universe into existence
GW: The authors are human and fallible. The universe is probably eternal and thus requires no cause. We already know from various arguments that God does not exist. You have not even touched my proof. Are you afraid of it? Well, you should be.
The atheistic belief that the universe is eternal is like believing that what looks like a painting has always existed, and no one painted it! “In all his thoughts there is no room for God” (Psalm 10:4 NIV). According all cosmological evidence, the universe began to exist at a definite time in the remote past, out of nothing, meaning there was no pre-existing “Primordial principle” from which to emerge! The “Big Bang” explanation of the universe’s beginning matches all current cosmological physical observations extremely closely.
RT: The atheistic belief that the universe is eternal is like believing that what looks like a painting has always existed, and no one painted it!
GW: The belief you mention is not an atheistic belief. There is no atheist doctrine or creed. Some atheists believe the universe was caused to come into existence by some unknown natural cause or just popped into existence without cause. Other atheists, like myself, believe the universe has always existed and always will exist. There is no one atheist belief regarding the time before the Big Bang.
GW: The universe doesn’t look like a painting or any work of art. There is no good evidence that the universe came into existence or was caused by a super person to come into existence. You are just speculating. Speculations are fine as long as you don’t believe them when they lack strong evidential support.
RT: “In all his thoughts there is no room for God” (Psalm 10:4 NIV).
GW: Oh, there’s plenty of room for God, if only he existed.
RT: According all cosmological evidence, the universe began to exist at a definite time in the remote past, out of nothing, meaning there was no pre-existing “Primordial principle” from which to emerge!
GW: False. The Big Bang was a rapid expansion of the universe from a very small, dense, and hot primordial particle or packet of energy. We have already agreed that something cannot come from nothing, so I don’t know why you persist in bringing up that irrational idea.
RT: The “Big Bang” explanation of the universe’s beginning matches all current cosmological physical observations extremely closely.
GW: We’ve been over this many times. The Big Bang does not require a beginning of the existence of the universe. The BB was probably just a transition event in an eternal universe. Once again, for about the tenth time, the eternal universe hypothesis is supported both by the First Law of Thermodynamics and Occam’s Razor. Besides, we now have sound proofs that God does not exist.
GW: Why are you evading my argument that God does not exist? If you don’t understand something in it, just ask and I will try to explain it to you.
Your contention that the existence of evil proves there’s no God, is false. In fact, this contention actually presupposes God. If God eliminated evil he would have to eliminate free choice, and if he eliminated evil, we would no longer have the ability to do good or to love. Thyen this would no longer be a moral world. God allowed humans to make their own choices, and he warned them of the dire consequences of sinful rebellion (Genesis 2:17-19). When humans went ahead in sinful rebellion, God did not force them to do right, nor did he shield them from the consequences that he had warned them about (Genesis 3; Romans 5:12). God has foretold that this sinful world will be made right when Christ returns, and not before (Revelation 21-22). We have been given the option to “be liberated from . . . bondage to decay and brought into the freedom [from sin and its effects] and glory of the children of God (Romans 8:21 NIV; John 3:16). God hasn’t yet intervened to eliminate evil because he wants more people to choose him and eternal life. The Bible indicates that Christ will return after “the full number” of people become believers (Romans 11:25 NIV). We should keep in mind that if God intervened now and prevented all pain and suffering, we would become the most reckless, self-centered people in the universe, and we would never learn from suffering. In most cases, bad fortune teaches while good fortune deceives. We not only learn lessons from suffering, it’s practically the only way to develop virtues (1 Peter 1:6,7).
RT: Your contention that the existence of evil proves there’s no God, is false. In fact, this contention actually presupposes God.
GW: That’s a red herring. I didn’t mention “evil” in my argument. “Evil” is an old, obsolete, and invalid religious concept. Instead, talk about harms – minor, moderate, and severe.
GW: Apparently, you believe that if God did exist, he would have allowed the COVID-19 pandemic. Please try to explain and defend that irrational idea. We are waiting. We’ve been waiting a long time for you to make the attempt.
RT: If God eliminated evil he would have to eliminate free choice,…
GW: That is just a straw man. If God did exist, he would PREVENT severe harms, like the COVID-19 pandemic. If you are going to dispute my argument, at least start with a clear understanding of it and use the valid terms which I use.
GW: If God did exist, he could certainly prevent severe harms without eliminating free choice. If you think he could not, then you are denying his alleged omnipotence. You did assert that he would be all-powerful! So, you have contradicted yourself!
RT: and if he eliminated evil, we would no longer have the ability to do good or to love.
GW: Where did I suggest that God would eliminate evil? I didn’t. You are just making stuff up. If God did exist and prevented severe harms, like the COVID-19 pandemic, how would that eliminate our ability “to do good or to love”? Please try to defend that silly idea.
RT: Thyen this would no longer be a moral world. God allowed humans to make their own choices, and he warned them of the dire consequences of sinful rebellion (Genesis 2:17-19).
GW: You are driving on a dead end road. Where did I mention human free will in the argument? What does that have to do with the origin of the pandemic? If God did exist, would he have free will? If so, would he use that free will to allow or prevent the pandemic? Justify your answer.
RT: When humans went ahead in sinful rebellion, God did not force them to do right, nor did he shield them from the consequences that he had warned them about (Genesis 3; Romans 5:12).
GW: Again, what does this have to do with prevention of the pandemic? You are going on a wild goose chase.
RT: God has foretold that this sinful world will be made right when Christ returns, and not before (Revelation 21-22).
GW: That is one of the most irrational ideas ever promulgated by Christians, and there many of them! Why would God wait to “make the world right”? If heaven exists, isn’t that world already right?
RT: We have been given the option to “be liberated from . . . bondage to decay and brought into the freedom [from sin and its effects] and glory of the children of God (Romans 8:21 NIV; John 3:16).
GW: What does this have to do with an alleged God’s decision to prevent or allow the pandemic? You are way off track.
RT: God hasn’t yet intervened to eliminate evil because he wants more people to choose him and eternal life.
GW: This is pure nonsense. You are contradicting the alleged God’s alleged traits of omnipotence and perfect moral nature. Besides, if he did exist, God would know that to maximize the percentage of people who “choose him and eternal life” the only rational thing to do is present a grand revelation – CURRENT, UNIVERSAL, UNEQUIVOCAL, CLEAR, and OBJECTIVE! And that, dear Ross, is exactly what he would do, if he existed.
RT: The Bible indicates that Christ will return after “the full number” of people become believers (Romans 11:25 NIV).
GW: More nonsense. I don’t know why you place so much stock in this foolish ancient book. The percentage of believers would be maximized by a grand revelation – current, universal, unequivocal, clear, and objective! Surely you know this.
RT: We should keep in mind that if God intervened now and prevented all pain and suffering, we would become the most reckless, self-centered people in the universe, and we would never learn from suffering.
GW: This is another straw man argument since NOWHERE have I suggested that, if he existed, God would or should prevent “all pain and suffering.” Do you know what a straw man argument is? You sure use a lot of them.
RT: In most cases, bad fortune teaches while good fortune deceives.
GW: How does good fortune deceive? If you do something morally or efficiently and produce a good outcome, how is this deception?
RT: We not only learn lessons from suffering, it’s practically the only way to develop virtues (1 Peter 1:6,7).
GW: If God existed and prevented the pandemic, would there be any suffering left in the world? Ross, you are not thinking clearly or rationally.
GW: Keep trying to poke holes in my argument and you will be enlightened even more.
GW: I have posed many questions to you in this post. I expect you to answer every one of them. But of course, you won’t. Why? Because at some level you know exactly where all this will lead – to your disbelief in God, and that is very scary to you. But you will survive and thrive, as I and many others have.
We’ve been over this before many times! God warned humans they would “die” if they ate “from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:17). Satan claimed, “You will not certainly die . . . For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:4,5 NIV). “God created mankind upright, but they have gone in search of many schemes” (Ecclesiastes 7:29 NIV). So God warned of what would happen, Satan claimed God was lying, humans went along with Satan in defiance of God, God allowed them to make their own choices. “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin” (Romans 5:12 NIV). This is why bad things, such as natural disasters and pandemics, occur.
RT: We’ve been over this before many times!
GW: Yes, and you never seem to reach correct conclusions about it. You make a point, I refute the point, and then you make the same point again. You do not respond clearly and earnestly to my refutation. You just dance around it, as if I never made it.
RT: God warned humans they would “die” if they ate “from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:17). Satan claimed, “You will not certainly die . . . For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:4,5 NIV). “God created mankind upright, but they have gone in search of many schemes” (Ecclesiastes 7:29 NIV). So God warned of what would happen, Satan claimed God was lying, humans went along with Satan in defiance of God, God allowed them to make their own choices.
GW: All that is totally irrelevant to my argument. Human beings did not choose to invent and spread the virus producing COVID-19. You are still on the dead end road. Get on the right road and tell us why you believe, if God did exist, he would ALLOW the pandemic to occur. We are still waiting.
RT: “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin” (Romans 5:12 NIV). This is why bad things, such as natural disasters and pandemics, occur.
GW: So, are you suggesting that if God did exist, he would allow the pandemic to occur to punish human beings now for their sins, the sins of Adam and Eve, or both? If so, please try to explain and defend that ridiculous idea. We are still waiting.
GW: As I expected, you have found no flaws, errors, or holes in my argument. Therefore, the argument stands. The conclusion is true – God does not exist! But if you keep trying, I will listen to and refute your points.
You claim that belief in an Almighty, loving and benevolent God, who allowed the COVID-19 pandemic is irrational. However, in saying this, you are unwittingly admitting that God exists! How so? You are using laws of logic, which are immaterial, and independent of humans. Humans use the laws of logic, but did not invent, or create them. God did! “The LORD [Yahweh] is our lawgiver” (Isaiah 33:22 NIV). “There is on one Lawgiver” (James 4:12 NIV). Human beings change, but logic doesn’t. The laws of logic provide an independent, unchanging measuring tool of truth across changing time, culture, and human belief. This is why they’re called laws of logic because they apply equally to everyone, just as the laws of physics and math do, regardless of one’s beliefs. Communication between humans is only possible through the laws of logic, which transcend us, yet are common to us. These are the unchanging, immaterial laws of logic, the bridge between minds. All debates (even ours) presuppose an objective truth exists outside the mind of each debater. Each debater is trying to show that his claims are closer to that objective truth than his opponents. Every truth claim, whether its “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist”–requires unchangeable laws of logic., If these were human conventions, then any thought that anyone conceived would be “true”, even contradictory thoughts! so “God exists”, and “God doesn’t exist”, would both be true at the same time, which is ridiculous.
RT: You claim that belief in an Almighty, loving and benevolent God, who allowed the COVID-19 pandemic is irrational.
GW: Or course it is irrational! I have presented one or more correct arguments to show that it is irrational! So far, you don’t understand these arguments.
RT: However, in saying this, you are unwittingly admitting that God exists! How so? You are using laws of logic, which are immaterial, and independent of humans.
GW: The laws of logic were invented by human persons long ago, were refined by the ancient Greeks, later by the philosophers of the Enlightenment, and later yet by modern philosophers.
RT: Humans use the laws of logic, but did not invent, or create them. God did!
GW: Human beings invented and use the laws of logic. By using the laws of logic and evidence, we now know that God does not exist.
RT: “The LORD [Yahweh] is our lawgiver” (Isaiah 33:22 NIV). “There is on one Lawgiver” (James 4:12 NIV).
GW: These verses were not referring to the laws of logic. They were referring to laws of morality. And they are both false anyway since God does not exist.
RT: Human beings change, but logic doesn’t.
GW: Logic does change. New rules are added and old rules are refined and improved.
RT: The laws of logic provide an independent, unchanging measuring tool of truth across changing time, culture, and human belief. This is why they’re called laws of logic because they apply equally to everyone, just as the laws of physics and math do, regardless of one’s beliefs.
GW: The laws of logic are highly stable over time. And we have used them to show that God does not exist. Bazinga!
RT: Communication between humans is only possible through the laws of logic, which transcend us, yet are common to us.
GW: Nonsense. Communication can and does occur without logic. It is highly likely that communication in small human tribes occurred BEFORE the laws of logic were invented. People even communicate illogical claims, as you do.
RT: These are the unchanging, immaterial laws of logic, the bridge between minds.
GW: The laws of logic are highly stable. See above discussion. And so we can use them to reach sound conclusions, like “God does not exist.”
RT: All debates (even ours) presuppose an objective truth exists outside the mind of each debater. Each debater is trying to show that his claims are closer to that objective truth than his opponents.
GW: We agree on those few points. “God does not exist” is an objective truth.
RT: Every truth claim, whether its “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist”–requires unchangeable laws of logic.
GW: That’s almost correct. Establishing what is true requires logic, evidence, reason, and science. And so, now we know the truth – God does not exist.
RT: If these were human conventions, then any thought that anyone conceived would be “true”, even contradictory thoughts!
GW: Nonsense. The laws of logic are human inventions and conventions. They are like the wheel. They weren’t invented by fish, squirrels, or gods. Some persons who try to use the laws of logic, like you, make errors which lead to false conclusions, like “God exists.”
RT: so “God exists”, and “God doesn’t exist”, would both be true at the same time, which is ridiculous.
GW: By the Law of Noncontradiction, both those claims cannot be true at the same time in the same way. “God does not exist” is true, and “God exists” is false. Just look at my argument. And it is one of several sound arguments.
It’s self-defeating for you to assert that laws of logic are simply a human convention. Why? Because you think your claim is true regardless of how human minds conceptualize it. Put another way, your claim relies on the laws of logic NOT being human conventions–it relies on them being fixed laws independent of human minds. All truth claims rely on that! A question will disabuse the notion that the laws of logic a just a human convention, the notion that humans have invented and refined these laws in our minds, but they don’t exist outside of human minds. Here it is: “Before there were any humans on the earth, was the statement, ‘There are no human beings on the earth,’ true?” . . . . . . . Of this is a true statement!!! The real kicker is that since there were no human minds to conceptualize it, the laws of logic can’t be a mere human convention. The laws of logic exist independent of human minds. The laws of logic are immaterial realities that don’t change–ever! Humans have discovered them, and refined their understanding of them, but did not invent them. They’re fixed, immaterial, external laws that would not exist if the purely material world of atheism were correct. While atheists use these laws, they cannot explain them. When people have operated in violation of these laws of logic, the results are always bad. “There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the LORD [Yahweh]” (Proverbs 21:30 NIV).
RT: It’s self-defeating for you to assert that laws of logic are simply a human convention.
GW: I disagree, but why do you think so?
RT: Why? Because you think your claim is true regardless of how human minds conceptualize it. Put another way, your claim relies on the laws of logic NOT being human conventions–it relies on them being fixed laws independent of human minds.
GW: You are just making up stuff here. Without human minds there would be no “laws of logic.” Human minds invented them! Show me a law of logic conveyed by writing before the advent of human beings. You can’t.
RT: All truth claims rely on that!
GW: No, they don’t! Most truth claims rely on evidence, but some rely on logic alone or on a combination of evidence and logic. The conclusion “God does not exist” relies on BOTH evidence and logic, as you can see from my argument.
RT: A question will disabuse the notion that the laws of logic a just a human convention, the notion that humans have invented and refined these laws in our minds, but they don’t exist outside of human minds. Here it is: “Before there were any humans on the earth, was the statement, ‘There are no human beings on the earth,’ true?” . . . . . . . Of this is a true statement!!!
GW: Your statements here are very poorly stated and nearly incoherent. What are you talking about? As far as we know, before human beings evolved on the Earth, there were no organisms to make claims, as we are making. There were no organisms to state laws of logic.
RT: The real kicker is that since there were no human minds to conceptualize it, the laws of logic can’t be a mere human convention. The laws of logic exist independent of human minds.
GW: Prove it. I totally disagree with you on this point. Laws of logic are products of minds, and the only minds we know to exist are human. Therefore, the laws of logic are products of human minds, as far as we know.
RT: The laws of logic are immaterial realities that don’t change–ever! Humans have discovered them, and refined their understanding of them, but did not invent them.
GW: The laws of logic do not exist in nature. They do not exist independently of minds. They were invented by ancient human minds who engaged in observations and experiments with the real world. They noticed that a stone could not be a tree at the same time in the same way. They noticed that a man could not be a bear at the same time in the same way. From observations like these, they invented the law of noncontradiction through INDUCTION. It is just a rule for effective thinking.
RT: They’re fixed, immaterial, external laws that would not exist if the purely material world of atheism were correct.
GW: You are about half right here. The laws of logic are relatively fixed; they are highly stable over time. They are immaterial in the sense that they are abstract principles, but they can be stated in symbols or words. They are not external laws. They are inventions of minds, inducted from observations. A material world is not necessarily an assumption of atheism. Some atheists believe that material and spiritual worlds coexist, and some atheists believe that only a spiritual world exists. Most atheists, like me, believe that an abstract mental world emerges from a material world.
RT: While atheists use these laws, they cannot explain them.
GW: I am an atheist and I explained the laws of logic to you, but you just don’t like my explanation. Too bad. It’s the truth.
RT: When people have operated in violation of these laws of logic, the results are always bad.
GW: I tend to agree with you on that point. So, because you have operated in violation of the laws of logic and evidence, as presented in my argument, your results are bad.
RT: “There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the LORD [Yahweh]” (Proverbs 21:30 NIV).
GW: Wisdom and insight show clearly that God does not exist. Just use the laws of logic and evidence and you shall reach that same conclusion.
You have much more “faith” than I do, as expressed by your admission that “an abstract mental world emerges from a material world.” Such an ’emergence’ has never been observed, much less proven. “The universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what is visible” (Hebrews 11:3 NIV).
RT: You have much more “faith” than I do,…
GW: I have no faith at all.
RT: …as expressed by your admission that “an abstract mental world emerges from a material world.”
GW: It is a proper conclusion based on the evidence. It is not really an “admission” as much as it is a confident assertion.
RT: Such an ’emergence’ has never been observed, much less proven.
GW: It is a reasonable inference from the evidence, very probably true. There is no evidence that inanimate objects or even plants have abstract mental concepts. There is evidence that human persons definitely have abstract mental concepts, and that some other animals may have. There was a time in the universe and on the Earth when there were no persons or other animals. And so, it is highly likely that there were no abstract mental concepts before the advent of animals with complex brains. Therefore, it is likely that in the course of evolution, abstract mental concepts were produced by or emerged from complex brains. This is the simplest idea which fits all the facts. You have no better idea.
RT: “The universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what is visible” (Hebrews 11:3 NIV).
GW: We now know that God does not exist. I have presented to you one proof of this. So far, you have found no error in the argument. But keep trying. I am enjoying the challenge.
According to macro-evolution, is what drives evolutionary changes. There would be no advantage to the beginning of a brain, since it could not produce thoughts. You admit that material things do not have have thoughts, and they certainly do not produce abstract mental processes. Your statements/assertions are contradictory of known facts, which means you have blind faith in something imaginary. You’re simply “pursuing [your] own imaginations” (Isaiah 65:2 NIV).
RT: According to macro-evolution, is what drives evolutionary changes.
GW: Micro-evolution just occurs over short periods of time, and macro-evolution occurs over long periods of time. Evolution is responsible for the changes in species since the advent of life about 3.5 billion years ago.
RT: There would be no advantage to the beginning of a brain, since it could not produce thoughts.
GW: There certainly would be! Any cluster of neurons produces thoughts. Brains are just larger clusters. The larger the cluster, the greater the quantity and quality of thoughts which are generated.
RT: You admit that material things do not have have thoughts, and they certainly do not produce abstract mental processes.
GW: You have misunderstood me. Brains produce abstract mental processes, sometimes known as thoughts. We live in a dualistic world. The material world produces the abstract mental world.
RT: Your statements/assertions are contradictory of known facts, which means you have blind faith in something imaginary.
GW: I don’t have any faith at all. Faith is a toxin. Please quote two statements I have made which you believe are contradictory and we can discuss them.
RT: You’re simply “pursuing [your] own imaginations” (Isaiah 65:2 NIV).
GW: There is nothing wrong with having an imagination. But you must test your imaginings to see if they correspond to reality. And you ought not believe any speculation for which there is no good evidence. And you ought to believe claims for which there is good evidence. For example, there is good evidence that God does not exist, and so you should believe that.
GW: You are drifting further and further from my argument. If God did exist, would he allow the pandemic we are facing? You seem to think he would. So please explain and defend that idea. Have you nothing to say about it? Whatever you say about it, I will refute. Proceed.
Your comment “the material world produces the abstract mental world” doesn’t solve the problem of how this “abstract mental world” arose in the first place. Evolutionary theory fails to explain it. “He has made everything beautiful in its own time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet know one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end” (Ecclesiastes 3:11 NIV). The fact is that humans often can, and do, contemplate and search for, meaning and purpose in life. Evolution cannot account for this, nor can it account for the art, music and altruism, etc., that humans pursue. The Bible explains that God “set” such qualities in the human heart.
RT: Your comment “the material world produces the abstract mental world” doesn’t solve the problem of how this “abstract mental world” arose in the first place.
GW: What’s the problem to be solved? I think it is just a brute fact of reality. Neurons generate thoughts. The greater the number of neurons in a cluster or a brain, the more complex the thoughts which are generated. I think your error is that you always assume that order in the universe must be installed from the outside by a god. I don’t see any good reasons to believe that.
RT: Evolutionary theory fails to explain it.
GW: Evolutionary theory totally explains the development of neurons and brains. The fact that they produce thoughts is just a brute fact of reality. That’s just the way it is! No designer or creator is necessary. “I have no need of that hypothesis” [the God hypothesis]. (Paraphrase of Laplace speaking to Napoleon in the 1800s.)
RT: “He has made everything beautiful in its own time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet know one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end” (Ecclesiastes 3:11 NIV).
GW: We now know that God does not exist. However, human persons like to survive and so it is not surprising that most would like to live forever.
RT: The fact is that humans often can, and do, contemplate and search for, meaning and purpose in life. Evolution cannot account for this, nor can it account for the art, music and altruism, etc., that humans pursue.
GW: Of course, evolution can account for those things! For example, purpose oriented organisms have a survival advantage over non-purpose oriented organisms.
RT: The Bible explains that God “set” such qualities in the human heart.
GW: We have no need for the God hypothesis. The eternal universe works fine on its own. Besides, we now know that God does not exist!
GW: You still have found no error in my argument. You still have not defended your belief that if God did exist, he would have allowed the pandemic to occur. Why do you think so? I have heard so many speculations, and I have refuted all of them. I’m ready to hear yours. You can’t hide behind the Bible.
Proven science agrees with the Bible that the universe had a beginning, and that something cannot come from nothing (Genesis 1:1). You atheists cannot explain: (1) Why the physical laws upon which the universe operates were in place prior to the universe’s existence; (2) Why the universe is so fine-tuned. Fine-tuning does not happen by accident; (3) How matter arose; (4) How life arose; (5) How consciousness arose.
RT: Proven science agrees with the Bible that the universe had a beginning, and that something cannot come from nothing (Genesis 1:1).
GW: Either the universe had a beginning or it did not, and so the Bible had a 50-50 chance of getting it correct. So what? Flip a flat stone.
GW: The “beginning” described in Genesis is not a coming of something from nothing, but a transformation of something from something. We already agree that something cannot come from nothing.
GW: We know that Genesis is not and cannot be any communication from God for two reasons: 1) God does not exist, and we know this from sound arguments. I presented one of them and you have found no errors in it. And 2) Genesis does not mention either the Big Bang or evolution, which we know to be true. If Genesis had been written, dictated, or inspired by God (if he did exist), then Genesis would have mentioned and described these two facts. It doesn’t. So the Genesis did not come from God; it couldn’t have come from God.
RT: You atheists cannot explain:
GW: What is an atheist? It is just a person who does not possess any beliefs in any gods, period. There is no atheist creed. Different atheists have different beliefs about different subjects, including the ones you mention here. I am only one atheist and I can only give you my opinions or the scientific conclusions about these topics.
RT: (1) Why the physical laws upon which the universe operates were in place prior to the universe’s existence;
GW: Your premise here is just mistaken. The physical laws are merely descriptions of the structure and regularities of the universe. Since the universe has very probably ALWAYS existed, it has very probably ALWAYS had structure and regularities.
RT: (2) Why the universe is so fine-tuned. Fine-tuning does not happen by accident;
GW: Your premise here is just mistaken. The term “fine tuning” begs the question. It assumes that there was a fine tuner, i.e. a supernatural person, who adjusted the constants of the universe, even the structure and regularities of the universe too, in order to produce something particular, such as life, intelligent life, or human life. There is no good evidence for this hypothesis. It is just speculation, a modern form of the supernatural design argument.
GW: We know that if things had been different just before the Big Bang, then things would be very different now. So what? This is just a derivation from Chaos Theory or the Butterfly Effect. However, we do not know if things could have been any different from what they were just before the Big Bang. And even if they could have been any different, we don’t know why they were what they were.
RT: (3) How matter arose;
GW: We know how matter arose. Energy was converted to matter according to a process described by Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2. This occurred as the universe spread out and cooled.
RT: (4) How life arose;
GW: We know how life arose in general, but not the particulars. Nonorganic molecules probably bound together to form organic molecules which then probably bound together to form a living organism. The rest is just evolution. Scientists continue to do research on abiogenesis to nail down the particulars.
RT: (5) How consciousness arose.
GW: Again, we know how consciousness arose in general, but not yet the particulars. Neurons were produced by genetic mutations. A neuron is a particular kind of cell which relatively quickly transmits information across space inside a living organism. Those organisms which had neurons had a survival advantage over those that did not within a particular environmental niche, and so they proliferated. Neuron clusters increased in size, again because of evolution. Brains are just large collections of neurons connected in complex ways. Once brains reached a certain size within some species, they produced consciousness. It is very likely that this is just a predictable natural process – once a brain exceeds a certain size and complexity, it yields consciousness. One day, the natural law for this will probably be described and expressed in mathematical terms. That will be an exciting day!
GW: None of these explanations has anything to do with atheism. They are just the best explanations which currently exist for the reality in which we live. They are supported by science and reason, not by faith which is the basis of all religion. Of course, more remains to be learned, but we have the general frameworks for all these phenomena.
GW: You are still evading any discussion or debate of my argument against the existence of God. Why? Because you have found nothing wrong with it and don’t wish to acknowledge this on your own public forum. We are still waiting for you to explain and defend your idea that if God did exist, then he would ALLOW the pandemic. Will you ever deal directly with this? I doubt it.
We’ve been over this for years, numerous times! When the Bible touches on science, history, geography, etc., it is always 100% accurate. Science says that energy transformed into matter at the beginning of the universe, and has been expanding from that infinitesimally tiny point ever since. The Bible referred to the same thing, using different words (Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 40:28; 42:5). The “laws” that govern the universe existed prior to the universe (Job 38:33). Laws come only come from a “lawgiver” (Isaiah 33:22). Science says that the universe has not always existed, but had a beginning, and that something cannot come from nothing. Order and complexity do not happen without skilled direction and guidance. There are no other viable options, other than the fact that “the Lord God Almighty”, who has been “God,” “from everlasting to everlasting,” “created all things” (Psalm 90:2 NIV; Hebrews 3:4; Revelation 4:11 NIV). All other options fail!
RT: We’ve been over this for years, numerous times!
GW: Yes we have! I don’t mind. One of my moral duties is to spread the truth.
RT: When the Bible touches on science, history, geography, etc., it is always 100% accurate.
GW: Whenever you make an “always” claim, I only need to find one counter example, and in the case of the Bible that is easy. In Genesis the Bible touches on science and describes the alleged early history of the universe and the Earth, but it is inaccurate. Its claims contradict the discoveries of the Big Bang and evolution. Therefore, your “always” claim here is false.
RT: Science says that energy transformed into matter at the beginning of the universe, and has been expanding from that infinitesimally tiny point ever since.
GW: You are mistaken. The Big Bang was not the beginning of the universe. It was the beginning of an expansion of a “primordial particle.” This particle was not a point. A point is an abstract geometrical concept. The particle was a physical thing. The particle was not “infinitesimally tiny.” It was finite in size and very small. The conversion of energy to matter did not begin at the Big Bang; it began thousands of years later. The only thing you were correct about here is that the expansion has continued, ongoing even now.
RT: The Bible referred to the same thing, using different words (Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 40:28; 42:5).
GW: You are mistaken. The description in Genesis is far removed from the description of modern science regarding the Big Bang and evolution. This is how we know that the Bible was not influenced by God in any way, even if he existed, which he does not.
RT: The “laws” that govern the universe existed prior to the universe (Job 38:33).
GW: You are misunderstanding the nature of physical laws. They don’t govern or control anything! They are descriptions of the structure and regularities of the universe. You are confusing two types of laws – physical laws and legislative laws. I’ve explained this difference to you many times, but it still has not sunk in.
RT: Laws come only come from a “lawgiver” (Isaiah 33:22).
GW: You are just mistaken about this. Physical or natural laws do not come from a lawgiver. They are just descriptions of the structure and regularities of the universe.
RT: Science says that the universe has not always existed, but had a beginning, and that something cannot come from nothing.
GW: We agree that something cannot come from nothing, and so when you claim that God caused something to come from nothing, you are just undermining the probability that God exists.
GW: I already listed three good reasons why the universe is probably eternal. I even borrowed one from you. You have presented no good reasons why the universe would have a beginning. Thus, it is highly likely that the universe is eternal and requires no creator at all.
RT: Order and complexity do not happen without skilled direction and guidance.
GW: Sure they do! They are intrinsic to the universe and there is no evidence that they were produced or caused by any intelligent agent. You can speculate all you want; there’s nothing wrong with that. But unless you present good evidence, reasons, and/or arguments for your position, your speculations have very low probability of being true.
GW: Take for example the common phenomenon of gravitation. We even have mathematical equations to describe it. There is no good evidence that any intelligent agent, let alone God, produced it. It is just a brute fact of the universe. It is what it is.
RT: There are no other viable options, other than the fact that “the Lord God Almighty”, who has been “God,” “from everlasting to everlasting,” “created all things” (Psalm 90:2 NIV; Hebrews 3:4; Revelation 4:11 NIV). All other options fail!
GW: Whenever you make an “only” claim, I only need to find one counterexample, and that is easy to do. Another viable option, the most probable, is that the universe is eternal. There you go. Your “only” claim is refuted.
GW: You are still beating around the bush. You are evading my argument. This is because you have found no error in it, and you won’t. It is a decisive argument.
We agree that something cannot come from nothing. Both the Bible and science say the same thing, however, science cannot explain where the energy that exploded into matter at the beginning of the universe came from. The Bible does (Genesis 1:1), from the eternal God (Psalm 90:2; Revelation 4:8,11; Hebrews 3:4; 11:3).
RT: We agree that something cannot come from nothing.
GW: Yes, I know.
RT: Both the Bible and science say the same thing,…
GW: Please present two verses from the Bible which clearly and unequivocally say that something cannot come from nothing. I don’t think you can.
RT: …however, science cannot explain where the energy that exploded into matter at the beginning of the universe came from.
GW: It didn’t come from anyplace or anywhere. It always existed! I have listed three good reasons for this. You have presented no good reasons to conclude that it came to be.
RT: The Bible does (Genesis 1:1), from the eternal God (Psalm 90:2; Revelation 4:8,11; Hebrews 3:4; 11:3).
GW: Provide specific quotes, not just citations. Don’t be lazy in your scholarship and apologetics.
GW: I can paraphrase the first verse by memory. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This doesn’t say anything about “where the energy that exploded into matter at the beginning of the universe came from.” It doesn’t say anything about energy, an explosion, or a beginning of the universe. I suspect that those other verses don’t either.
GW: You are still evading a discussion of my argument. I am not surprised.
The Hebrew word “bara” (Genesis 1:1,21,27) means “to create something new”, that is, something that hasn’t existed previously. This is what God did regarding the universe. Science agrees that the universe exploded out of nothing. The Bible says “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what is visible” (Hebrews 11:3 NIV). Yes, God created the universe, out of nothing, in a sense, by transforming some of his unlimited “power”, or his energy, into matter, as Einstein discovered, E=MC2. The Bible says the same thing, using different words. “Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one . . . Because of his GREAT POWER and strength, not one of them is missing” (Isaiah 40:28 NIV). “God is exalted in his power” (Job 36:22 NIV). “The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power” (Job 37:23 NIV). “His wisdom is profound and his power is vast. Who has resisted him and come out unscathed?” (Job 9:4 NIV). “He alone stretches out the heavens” (Job 9:8 NIV). To get to the place in the universe’s age where stars can form, the ratio of proton to electron mass, the relative strengths nature’s four fundamental forces, the balance between gravitational force and electromagnetic force in stars, the universe kicked off in an unnatural low entropy state, and the balance between the universe’s expansion and collapse, must each be chosen against odds that are impossible to explain by blind chance. Atheists are “blind” to these facts. “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:20 NIV).
RT: The Hebrew word “bara” (Genesis 1:1,21,27) means “to create something new”, that is, something that hasn’t existed previously.
GW: The problem is that the word “create” has two deeper meanings: 1) Make something from nothing. Or 2) Make something from something. You and I believe that the first does not occur, but other people disagree with us. I am not aware of a clear claim or report from the Bible of the first type of creation. When you follow up on the meaning of Genesis 1:1, it is clear that God has made something from something else.
RT: This is what God did regarding the universe.
GW: Ross, that is a very poorly formed sentence. Genesis claims that God made something from something. Of course, this is false since God does not exist.
RT: Science agrees that the universe exploded out of nothing.
GW: You keep repeating this falsehood. What do we know? A primordial particle of energy expanded rapidly about 13.7 billion years ago. Also, you and I agree that something cannot come from nothing, so why do you keep saying that something came from nothing? You keep misrepresenting science and also contradicting yourself!
RT: The Bible says “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what is visible” (Hebrews 11:3 NIV).
GW: The key word here is “formed.” This is a claim that God made something new (visible) out of something old (invisible).
RT: Yes, God created the universe, out of nothing, in a sense, by transforming some of his unlimited “power”, or his energy, into matter, as Einstein discovered, E=MC2.
GW: There you go again – contradicting science and yourself – postulating creation out of nothing! And then you add your hedge words “in a sense.”
GW: Let us just agree that the Bible story is that God made something – the heavens and the earth and all living things – out of something, and not out of nothing. But, as I have clearly shown, God does not exist.
RT: The Bible says the same thing, using different words. “Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one . . . Because of his GREAT POWER and strength, not one of them is missing” (Isaiah 40:28 NIV).
GW: Not one of them is missing? Huh? What a silly idea.
RT: “God is exalted in his power” (Job 36:22 NIV). “The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power” (Job 37:23 NIV). “His wisdom is profound and his power is vast. Who has resisted him and come out unscathed?” (Job 9:4 NIV). “He alone stretches out the heavens” (Job 9:8 NIV).
GW: The problem is that since God does not exist, and this has been proven, every single statement in the Bible about God is false! The Bible does not and cannot prove itself.
RT: To get to the place in the universe’s age where stars can form, the ratio of proton to electron mass, the relative strengths nature’s four fundamental forces, the balance between gravitational force and electromagnetic force in stars, the universe kicked off in an unnatural low entropy state, and the balance between the universe’s expansion and collapse, must each be chosen against odds that are impossible to explain by blind chance.
GW: The universe was in a NATURAL, not unnatural, low entropy state at the time of the Big Bang. There is no evidence that the universal constants were selected or chosen by an intelligent agent. You are just making up stuff that you like to think is true. Wishful thinking. You have no good evidence for this.
RT: Atheists are “blind” to these facts.
GW: You stating falsehoods, not facts. Like Kellyanne Conway, you are making up alternative facts to match your wishes.
RT: “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:20 NIV).
GW: If this were true, then one quality of the creator of the universe would be MALICE or INDIFFERENCE, and thus IMMORALITY. We can understand this from what we now see in terms of pandemics, hurricanes, tornados, droughts, floods, cancer, innumerable diseases, genocides, wars, rapes, murders, etc., and so people are without excuse. There is one better alternative to worshiping a monster and that is to worship nobody at all! That’s my choice. I have found nobody worthy of worship.
GW: Once again, you evade my argument. Not surprising. You have no clue on how to challenge it.
The Hebrew phrase “the heavens and the earth” when accompanied by definite articles, always refers to the entire physical universe. The Hebrew word “bara” [created] means “to make something brand-new or TO MAKE SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING”. Hebrews 11:3 [quoted above] says that the universe we can detect was created through that which we cannot detect. This means that the universe was created transcendentally, that it came from a source independent of matter, energy, length, width, height, and time. When Hubble’s discoveries in the 1920’s proved that galaxies are indeed expanding away from each other, and demonstrated that the expansion matched the same manner predicted by Einstein’s original formulation of general relativity, Einstein acknowledged “the necessity for a beginning” and “the presence of a superior reasoning power,” while denying that God was personal. Of course, the Bible had said all along that time had a beginning. “This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (2 Timothy 1:9 NIV). “In the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time” (Titus 1:2 NIV).
RT: The Hebrew phrase “the heavens and the earth” when accompanied by definite articles, always refers to the entire physical universe.
GW: That’s just your interpretation and it might be inaccurate. But even if it is an accurate interpretation, the claim is false. God does not exist, and the universe is almost certainly eternal, as I have shown.
RT: The Hebrew word “bara” [created] means “to make something brand-new or TO MAKE SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING”.
GW: Those two claims are not equivalent since making something brand new can mean making something new from something already existing. This can happen from combination or rearrangement. Besides, you and I already agreed that something cannot come from nothing. If you claim something cannot come from nothing and the Bible authors claim that something can come and did come from nothing, then one party is certainly wrong. Which one? I think it would be the Bible authors.
RT: Hebrews 11:3 [quoted above] says that the universe we can detect was created through that which we cannot detect.
GW: No, it talks about visibility, not detection. For example, we can not see atoms with the naked eye, but we can detect them. The universe is composed of very tiny bits of energy-matter which can neither be created nor destroyed, as is stated in the First Law of Thermodynamics. You keep ignoring this.
RT: This means that the universe was created transcendentally, that it came from a source independent of matter, energy, length, width, height, and time.
GW: It is the false claim of Genesis that God created the universe. This alleged creation, however, was a forming or shaping or transformation, not making something from nothing. However, we know that God does not exist and that underlying energy-matter of the universe is almost certainly eternal.
RT: When Hubble’s discoveries in the 1920’s proved that galaxies are indeed expanding away from each other, and demonstrated that the expansion matched the same manner predicted by Einstein’s original formulation of general relativity, Einstein acknowledged “the necessity for a beginning” and “the presence of a superior reasoning power,” while denying that God was personal.
GW: Yes, Einstein recognized the beginning of a grand expansion. By picking snippets of alleged quotes from Einstein, you are misleading your readers. Provide the full sentence quotes. The concept of “God” necessarily refers to a unique person or intelligent agent. There can be no god which is not a person or intelligent agent. Einstein probably did not understand this. An orderly universe does not mean the “presence of a superior reasoning power.”
RT: Of course, the Bible had said all along that time had a beginning. “This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (2 Timothy 1:9 NIV).
GW: The verse contradicts itself and thus it is false. Being given something is an act in time, not outside of time. “Before” itself is a time concept. So, it is easy to see how the verse is nonsense.
RT: “In the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time” (Titus 1:2 NIV).
GW: This is not even a sentence; it is a fragment. However, it also contradicts itself. Making a promise is an act in time, not outside of time. Once again, “before” itself is a time concept. So, this verse too is nonsense.
GW: Some Christians and other religious people assert that God exists outside of space and time and that there was a time before time, but these ideas are pure nonsense. We have no knowledge of anything like that. Any object or thing you can cite exists in space-time.
GW: You are still evading a discussion of my argument. We know why. You have no antidote for it. The argument shows conclusively that God does not exist. Ring the bells for the funeral.
Yahweh God himself lives in an eternity of time, and has set his creatures in the stream of time. No human can fully understand or explain time, nor explain where and how time began or where it is flowing, other than knowing that time is one-directional, into the future, never in reverse, or halting, that we live in the present only, and the past cannot be changed. However, space-time in the physical world apparently began when God transformed some of his energy into matter at the so-called “big-bang” event that started the universe’s existence (Isaiah 40:26; Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 3:4; 11:3). It was before this event that God purposed his “grace” to be “given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (2 Timothy 1:9 NIV).
RT: Yahweh God himself lives in an eternity of time, and has set his creatures in the stream of time.
GW: That’s such an odd and perhaps mistaken way of putting it. If God did exist, he would be eternal, but of course the creatures he made would not be.
GW: Yaweh is just an ancient and primitive version of God. The concept of God has evolved over time. Many of the acts of Yaweh described in the OT would never be done by God, if he existed. Surely you know this.
RT: No human can fully understand or explain time, nor explain where and how time began or where it is flowing, other than knowing that time is one-directional, into the future, never in reverse, or halting, that we live in the present only, and the past cannot be changed.
GW: You just presented your understanding of time, and I mostly agree with it. Nobody needs to fully understand time. It is highly likely that time never began but always existed. As long as there has been one event, time has existed. It is highly likely that the sequence of events goes on forever in both directions, the past and the future. Even if God did exist, he would have always been doing things – having thoughts, acting, creating things, setting up systems, etc.
RT: However, space-time in the physical world apparently began when God transformed some of his energy into matter at the so-called “big-bang” event that started the universe’s existence (Isaiah 40:26; Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 3:4; 11:3).
GW: You are misrepresenting the Bible. Those verses say nothing of energy, matter, the universe, or the Big Bang.
GW: We now know that God does not exist. Get over it. It is highly likely that the totality of dynamic-orderly energy-matter in space-time, i.e. the universe, has existed forever. I have already presented the three strong reasons supporting this hypothesis.
RT: It was before this event that God purposed his “grace” to be “given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (2 Timothy 1:9 NIV).
GW: Well first, God does not exit. But if he did exist, he would never set up a system of grace, forgiveness, or atonement through Jesus. That would mean that God corrected himself, which would be impossible, since he would do everything correctly forever, but especially from the advent of sentient creatures. Also, God would never forgive anyone for any wrongdoing, not even you. Instead, he would establish a system of perfect justice. Have you ever thought what that system would be like? Like nothing described in the Bible, we can be certain of that.
Human concepts of God have, indeed, “evolved over time”, as you put it. However, as Malachi 3:6 accurately quotes him, “I the LORD [Yahweh] do not change” (NIV). He never has, and he never will, nor does he need to. “Can anyone teach knowledge to God, since he judges even the highest?” (Job 21:22 NIV). Of course not! “All [God’s] words are true” (Psalm 119:160 NIV). “The law of the LORD [Yahweh] is perfect” (Psalm 19:7 NIV). All of the Biblically recorded actions of Yahweh are 100% true and accurate! God’s allowance of human free will is perfect. If God did not allow free will, we would have no choice to love, to do good, or do bad. Humans making bad choices is not God’s fault. “God created humans upright, but they have gone in search of many options” (Ecclesiastes 7:29 NIV). “He is a God of justice” (Psalm 50:6 NIV). “The LORD [Yahweh] is a God of justice” (Isaiah 30:18 NIV). “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne” (Psalm 97:2 NIV). “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood–to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his own righteousness . . . so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:25,26 NIV). This is perfect justice.
RT: Human concepts of God have, indeed, “evolved over time”, as you put it.
GW: Agreed.
RT: However, as Malachi 3:6 accurately quotes him, “I the LORD [Yahweh] do not change” (NIV). He never has, and he never will, nor does he need to.
GW: I agree that if God did exist, he would not have changed in his traits. For example, he would be perfectly moral from the time he created or brought about other persons.
RT: “Can anyone teach knowledge to God, since he judges even the highest?” (Job 21:22 NIV). Of course not!
GW: If God did exist, he would be perfectly moral. However, we humans must figure out what it means to be moral and to be perfectly so. I have addressed this problem in the argument I presented to you in steps #5, 6, and 7. Pay close attention to them.
RT: “All [God’s] words are true” (Psalm 119:160 NIV).
GW: Yes, if God did exist, he would only speak the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help himself. But not only that, he would be forthcoming, not timid. As I have said before, if God did exist he would present himself and his rules for living in grand revelations – current, universal, unambiguous, and objective. This has not happened. There is only one conclusion to draw – God does not exist.
RT: “The law of the LORD [Yahweh] is perfect” (Psalm 19:7 NIV).
GW: Yes, if God did exist, he would be perfectly moral.
RT: All of the Biblically recorded actions of Yahweh are 100% true and accurate!
GW: I totally disagree. Because God does not exist, every sentence in the Bible which describes any action of God is false. In many verses of the Bible, it is said that God orders, authorizes, endorses, or allows atrocious acts. For example, Isaiah 13:16 says “Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.” If he did exist, God would never do such things or allow them. Instead, he would be perfectly moral.
RT: God’s allowance of human free will is perfect. If God did not allow free will, we would have no choice to love, to do good, or do bad. Humans making bad choices is not God’s fault.
GW: I totally disagree with your conception of free will which might have been given to human persons by God. Because he would be all-powerful, he could allow free will to do some things but not other things. For example, he could allow men the free will to ask women for sex, but not allow men the free will to rape women. However, if God did exist and he allowed the latter, then every rape would be partly God’s fault. If God disallowed persons the free will to rape, they could and would still have the free will to love and do good. So, your analysis of free will is totally defective.
RT: “God created humans upright, but they have gone in search of many options” (Ecclesiastes 7:29 NIV).
GW: Well first, God does not exist. And secondly, human persons have the capacity and intentions to act both ethically and unethically. That’s just human nature.
RT: “He is a God of justice” (Psalm 50:6 NIV). “The LORD [Yahweh] is a God of justice” (Isaiah 30:18 NIV). “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne” (Psalm 97:2 NIV).
GW: If God did exist, all three of these verses would be correct, but sadly, he doesn’t.
RT: “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood–to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his own righteousness . . . so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:25,26 NIV).
GW: As I have told you before, this is one of the most ridiculous ideas in all of Christianity, completely irrational! Any system of atonement violates the principle of individual accountability. It is unethical for one innocent person to take on the guilt and penalty of a guilty person. Blood atonement is even worse. It is irrational that an innocent person should be harmed and shed blood on account of the sins of another person. That is just stupid. There are no good reasons to have faith in Jesus. Faith is a vice, not a virtue.
RT: This is perfect justice.
GW: Absolutely not! No system implementing atonement, forgiveness, mercy, or grace is just. It is the opposite of justice! This is as clear as anything can be. In a system of justice, each person is penalized reliably, quickly, fairly, and proportionally for his wrong doing, regardless of who he happens to be, including you. And me. Christianity is a distortion of justice to the greatest degree. In that crazy system people like Ted Bundy are allowed to go directly to heaven as long as they profess faith in Jesus. What a farce!
GW: As usual, you have again evaded my argument. We know why.
Atonement does not violate “the principle of individual accountability”, as you allege. On the contrary, it acknowledges “the principle of individual responsibility.” In actuality, it isn’t justice that we need, it’s mercy! God’s allowance of humans to exercise their own free will allowed for the introduction of the “sin [and death that] entered the world through one man . . . and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12 NIV). “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement through the shedding of his blood–to be received by faith” (Romans 3:23-25 NIV). To be justified means that we’re declared not guilty, similar to a legal court’s declaration of the accused being declared not guilty, and additionally, all charges expunged from the record. God does this on the basis of his eternal laws (Romans 3:26 NIV). “By one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy” (Hebrews 10:14 NIV). Whether you like it or not, God’s eternal moral laws and principles cannot be changed, just as the laws and principles upon which the universe operates cannot be changed. One example of this is, “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22 NIV). As far as we know, Ted Bundy did not express any remorse over his sins, and remained hard core to the end. “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains upon him” (John 3:36 NIV). “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment” (Hebrews 10:26,27 NIV). When we look at the facts of his case, the future doesn’t look good for him. Of course, “it is God who judges” (Psalm 75:6 NIV).
RT: Atonement does not violate “the principle of individual accountability”, as you allege. On the contrary, it acknowledges “the principle of individual responsibility.”
GW: I totally disagree with you, but I’ll listen to your defense of it and then rebut it.
RT: In actuality, it isn’t justice that we need, it’s mercy!
GW: I totally disagree. Justice is the proper prime goal when wrong doing has occurred. Justice is the administration of rational punishment by a proper authority. Justice is the best way to correct and deter wrong doing. Mercy, forgiveness, and atonement are perversions or violations of justice.
RT: God’s allowance of humans to exercise their own free will allowed for the introduction of the “sin [and death that] entered the world through one man . . . and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12 NIV).
GW: Here you are improperly mixing quotation and your own interpretation. God does not exist, but if he did exist, he would not punish Adam and Eve and all their descendants with death. That would be a violation of justice and individual accountability. It is one of the dumbest ideas ever invented. It shows a gross misunderstanding of morality.
RT: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement through the shedding of his blood–to be received by faith” (Romans 3:23-25 NIV).
GW: That’s just a restatement of the false doctrine of blood atonement. If he did exist, God would not punish one person, i.e. Jesus, for the wrong doing of other persons, i.e. all humans. God would not forgive anyone for their sins, including you, but would punish all justly. And furthermore, God would not arrange for the humiliation, torture, and murder of his own son. If you think God would do any of these immoral things, then you just lack a sound understanding of the concepts of God and morality. What does it mean to be perfectly moral? I dealt with this issue in Steps #5, 6, and 7 of my argument. Check it out.
RT: To be justified means that we’re declared not guilty, similar to a legal court’s declaration of the accused being declared not guilty, and additionally, all charges expunged from the record.
GW: If he did exist, God would not declare any guilty person “not guilty”! That would be lying. Even you quoted the Bible – “all have sinned…” If he did exist, God would justly punish every person, including you, for every sin. You have an inadequate understanding of justice and morality. If God did exist, he would strongly disagree with you.
RT: God does this on the basis of his eternal laws (Romans 3:26 NIV).
GW: Of course if God existed, he would have eternal laws! One of them would be “Justly punish every act of wrong doing.”
RT: “By one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy” (Hebrews 10:14 NIV).
GW: This is just false doctrine. No person can substitute for another.
RT: Whether you like it or not, God’s eternal moral laws and principles cannot be changed, just as the laws and principles upon which the universe operates cannot be changed.
GW: We agree on this point, if God did exist. But you just have a misunderstanding of proper morality.
RT: One example of this is, “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22 NIV).
GW: This is just false doctrine. If God did exist, there would be no forgiveness, atonement, or blood sacrifice. There would be perfect justice.
RT: As far as we know, Ted Bundy did not express any remorse over his sins, and remained hard core to the end.
GW: There are several reports that he did! See below. But don’t evade the main point here. You believe wrongly that if Ted Bundy confessed his sins and sincerely believed in the resurrection and atonement of Jesus, then he would go to heaven to be with God and would escape punishment for his horrible rapes and murders. That is how perverted your morality has become.
GW: “Ted Bundy was a notorious serial killer executed for his crimes. But before he died, he also claimed faith and forgiveness in Christ.”
https://faithalone.org/grace-in-focus-articles/grace-in-the-final-hour/#:~:text=Ted%20Bundy%20was%20a%20notorious%20serial%20killer%20executed,reported%20his%20last%20words%20before%20the%20lethal%20injection.
GW: “He became a born-again Christian while he awaited execution on death row. He explains to Dr Dobson his deep sense of shame and remorse over his crimes and how, while in prison, he had found forgiveness for his sins through Jesus Christ and peace as he faced his “Valley of the Shadow of Death”.
https://spcs.org.nz/dr-james-dobson-interviews-serial-rapist-murderer-ted-bundy-hours-before-he-is-executed-by-electrocution/
RT: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains upon him” (John 3:36 NIV).
GW: Again, this is false doctrine. God would never implement dichotomous punishment, salvation through merely a belief, and escape of punishment by faith in atonement.
RT: “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment” (Hebrews 10:26,27 NIV).
GW: This verse actually contradicts the doctrine of atonement. The Bible has many contradictions and could not be the word of God, even if he existed, and we know he does not.
RT: When we look at the facts of his case, the future doesn’t look good for him. Of course, “it is God who judges” (Psalm 75:6 NIV).
GW: If God did exist, it wouldn’t look good for you either in one sense. You would be punished proportionally for all of your sins, without exception. God would be the model of perfect justice.
You have misunderstood God’s forgiveness. Because David was sincerely, genuinely repentant over his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah, God freely forgave him. “Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the LORD.’ Nathan replied, ‘The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.” But God doesn’t negate all the consequences of sin, as we can see in David’s case. “But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the LORD, the son born to you will die” (2 Samuel 12:13,14 NIV). You also misunderstand inherited sin. God allowed Adam and Eve the free will to decide if they wanted obey him or not. Their choice of sin and disobedience resulted in their being intrinsically imperfect/sinful, because they had disconnected from their Creator. Another example is the principle at John 8:51, “Whoever obeys my word will never see [spiritual] death” (NIV), but will experience physical death. “Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live [eternally], even though will die” (John 11:25 NIV). An example would be unplugging an electric fan. The blade would slow down and eventually stop completely. Another example is that after a dent is put into a mold, all subsequent models produced will have that dent. Adam and Eve could only pass on to their offspring what they intrinsically had–sin and its ultimate result–death. “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12 NIV). Another misunderstanding you have is the seriousness of the consequences of sin. Sin has produced tragic results for humanity, and everything else on this planet. God’s forgiveness paves the way for “a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13 NIV), “that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God” (Romans 8:21 NIV). You also misunderstand the fact that “Christ Jesus . . . gave himself as a ransom for all people” (1 Timothy 2:6 NIV), “Christ is the mediator of a new covenant . . . now that he has died as a ransom to set them free” (Hebrews 9:15 NIV). If you were held hostage for ransom by some criminal gang, you may appreciate it if someone paid the ransom price for your release. “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace” (Ephesians 1:7 NIV). Whether lifelong con-artist Bundy was genuine in his professed repentance or not, only God knows. Some people, like Esau, are not genuine when they profess repentance, and God does not accept their insincere pleadings. “When he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. Even though he sought the blessing with tears, he could not change what he had done” (Hebrews 12:17 NIV).
RT: You have misunderstood God’s forgiveness.
GW: First, God does not exist; this has been proven. So, God has neither a program of justice nor of forgiveness. However, I will clear the air and present you with some critical definitions:
Justice (or “true justice” if you prefer that term) is retribution, revenge, or contingent intentional harm imposed by a duly constituted authority against a person in response to their “bad” behavior in a consistent, fair, humane, transparent, reliable, and proportional manner. Justice will have many effects including reducing the probability of similar bad behavior of the offender, deterrence of others from similar behavior, protection of the offender and the community, repairing damage done, and restoring relationships.
“Forgiveness” has two important but different definitions: 1) Forgiveness is the withholding of or reduction in a just penalty in response to a harmful, immoral, unethical, and/or unlawful behavior by another. In this sense forgiveness is always contradictory to justice. 2) Forgiveness is the setting aside of resentment towards another who has behaved in a harmful, immoral, unethical, and/or unlawful manner. In this latter sense forgiveness may be compatible with justice and helpful if it is invoked AFTER justice has been applied.
RT: Because David was sincerely, genuinely repentant over his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah, God freely forgave him.
GW: This implies that God invoked forgiveness in the first sense (see above) which is something God would never do, if he existed. Keep in mind that God would be perfectly moral which includes being perfectly just.
RT: “Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the LORD.’ Nathan replied, ‘The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.”
GW: Impossible. No person can change the past. If a person sins, then the sin cannot be taken away. It would be possible to forgive a person for their sin, but this would be immoral, if done in the first sense.
RT: But God doesn’t negate all the consequences of sin, as we can see in David’s case.
GW: Forgiveness in the first sense can entail either a withholding of a just punishment or the reduction in one. See previous definition. Either way, it would be immoral, something which God would not do, if he existed. You appear to be engaged in wishful thinking – hoping that a deity will let you off the hook.
RT: “But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the LORD, the son born to you will die” (2 Samuel 12:13,14 NIV).
GW: This would be an unjust penalty which God would never impose, if he existed. Your Tuckergod is very harsh.
RT: You also misunderstand inherited sin. God allowed Adam and Eve the free will to decide if they wanted obey him or not. Their choice of sin and disobedience resulted in their being intrinsically imperfect/sinful, because they had disconnected from their Creator.
GW: Apparently they were already imperfect before they sinned since God gave them the free will to sin; he gave them the PROPENSITY to sin. A person cannot sin before they sin. That is impossible!
RT: Another example is the principle at John 8:51, “Whoever obeys my word will never see [spiritual] death” (NIV), but will experience physical death.
GW: Once again, you are mixing quotation with your own interpretation, and that is misleading. Also, this verse implies that everyone will experience “spiritual death” since other verses imply that nobody is perfect in obeying God’s word, i.e. everyone sins sooner or later.
RT: “Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live [eternally], even though will die” (John 11:25 NIV).
GW: This verse contradicts itself since it implies life and death for the same person. Also, there is no good evidence that Jesus came back to life, as we have discussed.
RT: An example would be unplugging an electric fan. The blade would slow down and eventually stop completely.
GW: Huh? This is an obtuse example, not helpful to your case.
RT: Another example is that after a dent is put into a mold, all subsequent models produced will have that dent.
GW: Genetics does not work that way. If Adam lifts weights and strengthens his muscles, his offspring will not have big muscles as a result. On the other hand, according to the Adam and Eve story, God punished not only Adam and Eve for their disobedience, but he also punished all their descendants for that same disobedience of the parents, i.e. all of succeeding humanity. If God did exist, of course he would never do this since it would violate the principle of individual accountability. An ethical authority only punishes the individual wrong doer and nobody else. Unfortunately, you have swallowed primitive morality hook, line, and sinker.
RT: Adam and Eve could only pass on to their offspring what they intrinsically had–sin and its ultimate result–death.
GW: Sin is a behavior. The parents did not pass on sin. They couldn’t. However, God could punish the descendants by imposing a propensity to sin, death, pain in childbirth, difficulty in farming, etc., and according to the story, that’s exactly what he did. He punished the children for the sins of the parents. In real life, God would never do such a thing, despite what you believe or wish.
RT: “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12 NIV).
GW: That would be a total perversion of morality. But that is what some ancient peoples actually believed. You don’t need to go along with it. It would not be the way of God, if he did exist.
RT: Another misunderstanding you have is the seriousness of the consequences of sin. Sin has produced tragic results for humanity, and everything else on this planet.
GW: Since there is no God, there is no sin. However, people do sometimes behave wrongly, and the severity of that behavior varies along a continuum. (Murder is worse than stealing a candy bar.) This is why justice is so important. The severity of punishment must be proportional to the severity of the misbehavior. If God did exist, then he would set up a system of justice, no exceptions, not even for you.
RT: God’s forgiveness paves the way for “a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13 NIV),
GW: Nonsense. If God did exist, he would set up a perfect system of justice from the beginning. There wouldn’t be a new system.
RT: “that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God” (Romans 8:21 NIV).
GW: More nonsense. If God did exist, justice would reign from the beginning. Go back and read the definition of justice I gave you earlier.
RT: You also misunderstand the fact that “Christ Jesus . . . gave himself as a ransom for all people” (1 Timothy 2:6 NIV),
GW: No, I completely understand this false doctrine. I can explain it to you in every detail. I was a Christian for many years and I have read the entire Bible twice.
RT: “Christ is the mediator of a new covenant . . . now that he has died as a ransom to set them free” (Hebrews 9:15 NIV).
GW: New? Are you kidding me? You are denying the omnipotence and perfect moral nature of God. He would have no need for a new covenant since his original covenant would have been perfect!
RT: If you were held hostage for ransom by some criminal gang, you may appreciate it if someone paid the ransom price for your release.
GW: Your analogy is terrible since in the scenario I have done nothing wrong! This is totally unlike the alleged atonement scenario where everyone has done wrong. I abhor systems of forgiveness, mercy, and atonement. They are immoral. Let there be perfect justice instead.
RT: “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace” (Ephesians 1:7 NIV).
GW: This is just a false doctrine. If God did exist, he would implement a system of perfect justice. Even you would be subjected to it, regardless of your contrary beliefs. God would never implement a system of forgiveness, mercy, or atonement, especially blood atonement.
GW: Imagine two islands each with a hundred people. On one island X, the government practices perfect justice. On the other island Y, the government practices perfect forgiveness. Which colony will survive and thrive better? Colony X, of course.
RT: Whether lifelong con-artist Bundy was genuine in his professed repentance or not, only God knows.
GW: You are still missing the point. If Bundy was genuine, then according to you, God would waive all punishment for him and send him directly to heaven to be with God. What a ridiculous idea! I can’t believe you have swallowed this nonsense. You should have outgrown these beliefs long ago.
RT: Some people, like Esau, are not genuine when they profess repentance, and God does not accept their insincere pleadings. “When he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. Even though he sought the blessing with tears, he could not change what he had done” (Hebrews 12:17 NIV).
GW: This verse supports my position and refutes yours. God would justly punish Esau, despite his beliefs and pleadings, because his sin was vested. You can’t change the past. Once you sin, you must be properly punished for the sin. There would be no way out, even for you. Having silly beliefs that Jesus came back to life and atoned for your sins would not save you from justice. You would have to pay the price for your own wrong doing.
GW: Unfortunately, you are still evading my proof.
“As for God, his way is perfect” (2 Samuel 22:31 NIV). “His works are perfect, all his ways are justice” (Deuteronomy 32:4 NIV). So his forgiveness and his justice are perfect. His “thoughts are not your thoughts” and his “ways are higher than your ways” (Isaiah 55:8,9 NIV). He is the only “one who has perfect knowledge” (Job 36:4 NIV). You do not believe this. “You have rejected the LORD [Yahweh] (Numbers 11:20 NIV). Your choice. “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness . . . since what may be known about God is plain to them, for God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20 NIV), including you. According to the scripture, you “are without excuse”. Your choice is reminiscent of Acts 13:46, “We had to speak the word of God to you first . . . you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life” (NIV). “The LORD [Yahweh] will judge the ends of the earth” (1 Samuel 2:10 NIV), including you. “He has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this everywhere by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17:32 NIV). Even Jesus’ enemies not only could not deny the truth of his resurrection, but they even “gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, ‘You are to say, “His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.” If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.’ So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day” (Matthew 28:12-15 NIV). Your choice to believe or reject. “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3 NIV).
RT: “As for God, his way is perfect” (2 Samuel 22:31 NIV). “His works are perfect, all his ways are justice” (Deuteronomy 32:4 NIV).
GW: If God did exist (he doesn’t), then his way would be perfect. He would be perfectly moral and this trait includes perfectly just.
RT: So his forgiveness and his justice are perfect.
GW: Forgiveness (in the first sense) is contradictory to justice. I’ll give you an example. Suppose that perfect justice requires a term of imprisonment of 30 years for murder. If a judge forgives the offender (in the first sense) then he either withholds that sentence or reduces it to something less than 30 years. I’ll give you a second example, a theoretical one. Suppose perfect justice requires a term in hell of 300 years for Ted Bundy. If a judge, some evil god, forgives Ted (in the first sense) then he either withholds that punishment and sends Ted directly to heaven or reduces it to something less than 300 years, perhaps because Ted said he was sorry, begged for forgiveness, and believed in Jesus Christ. So you see, you can’t have it both ways. If God did exist, he would have it one way – the perfectly just way!
RT: His “thoughts are not your thoughts” and his “ways are higher than your ways” (Isaiah 55:8,9 NIV).
GW: That’s not entirely correct. I’ll give you a pertinent example. If God did exist, then he would be all powerful. If he were all powerful, then he would either allow the pandemic or prevent it. There are only these two choices. Some people think God would allow it, and their thoughts are not God’s thoughts. On the other hand, other people think God would prevent it, and their thoughts are God’s thoughts.
RT: He is the only “one who has perfect knowledge” (Job 36:4 NIV). You do not believe this.
GW: If God did exist, he would be all-knowing. This is included in my standard definition of God. See step #1.
RT: “You have rejected the LORD [Yahweh] (Numbers 11:20 NIV). Your choice.
GW: I have rejected the views of God which are yours and that of the Bible writers, for sure. They are false views. God would not allow the pandemic. If you think otherwise, then present your case. You don’t have a clue about this.
RT: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness . . . since what may be known about God is plain to them, for God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20 NIV), including you.
GW: You and the Bible writers have just drawn fanciful inferences from what is seen to what is unseen. For example, you infer from the existence of the universe that there must have been a creator of it. Why must there have been? That’s just wishful thinking for which there is no sound evidence. There are other possibilities which are much more reasonable.
RT: According to the scripture, you “are without excuse”.
GW: I don’t need an excuse. My conclusions are sound, based on evidence, logic, reason, and science.
RT: Your choice is reminiscent of Acts 13:46, “We had to speak the word of God to you first . . . you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life” (NIV).
GW: Nobody has spoken the word of God. There is no good evidence for this. If God spoke, everyone would know it, understand it, and accept it. The revelation would be current, universal, unequivocal, clear, and objective, just as I have explained to you so many times.
RT: “The LORD [Yahweh] will judge the ends of the earth” (1 Samuel 2:10 NIV), including you.
GW: Yes, if God did exist, he would judge all of us, including you, and me. I wish he did exist, but sadly he doesn’t.
RT: “He has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this everywhere by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17:32 NIV).
GW: This is false doctrine. God would do his own judging; he would not appoint an intermediary for this. There is no good evidence that anyone has ever died and come back to life.
RT: Even Jesus’ enemies not only could not deny the truth of his resurrection, but they even “gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, ‘You are to say, “His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.” If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.’ So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day” (Matthew 28:12-15 NIV).
GW: This story about the guards is uncorroborated by any of the other NT writings and it is almost certainly false, just a fabrication. Mark, Luke, and John say nothing about guards. Why? Because no guards were posted.
RT: Your choice to believe or reject.
GW: I choose to reject. There are no good reasons to believe.
RT: “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3 NIV).
GW: God does not exist, and this has been proven. Jesus probably existed, but he was not divine, did not come back to life, and did not atone for the sins of humanity. If God did exist, he would implement a system of justice, not of forgiveness, mercy, or atonement. He would not violate the principle of individual accountability. Traditional Christian doctrine is foolish, irrational, and false. Every year the percentage of nonbelievers increases, a very good thing.
As this article above states and proves, it requires much more faith to believe in atheism than it does to believe in a Creator. “Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking” (Romans 1:28 NLT). One of the serious consequences of atheism is an unsound mind. Atheism puts atheists on the horns of a delimma. Atheists are not able to use their minds as intended. Of yes, many atheists do have brilliant minds–except in the most important area–the acknowledgement of God’s existence! “Only fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1 NLT). The true atheist is foolish because he/she ignores the evidence that God exists. Atheists, such as yourself, are in denial of the overwhelming scientific, astronomical evidence supporting the ‘Big Bang’ creation event (Genesis 1:1), in their/your desperation to believe “There is no God.” The complex sea of spinning stars and galaxies that make up the universe functions with amazing order and efficiency! To say that the universe has ‘always existed,’ or ‘just happened,’ or ‘evolved,’ actually takes more faith to believe than to believe that “the Lord God Almighty . . . created” the universe (Revelation 4:8,11 NIV).
RT: As this article above states and proves, it requires much more faith to believe in atheism than it does to believe in a Creator.
GW: Atheism is an absence of belief, not a presence of a belief. Atheism is not something people believe in. If you want to discuss beliefs, then you must state a claim or proposition like “God exists.” We now know that this claim is false; it has been proven false.
RT: “Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking” (Romans 1:28 NLT).
GW: First, God does not exist. But secondly, if God did exist, he would not abandon anyone! He would justly punish everyone for every act of wrong doing, including you. You could not escape God’s justice even if you wanted to. Sorry, Ross.
RT: One of the serious consequences of atheism is an unsound mind.
GW: Of course you have no good evidence to support this claim. I am an atheist and I am of sound mind. The percentage of religious believers in prisons is much higher than the percentage of religious believers among people outside prisons. Does religion somehow facilitate bad behavior?
RT: Atheism puts atheists on the horns of a delimma. Atheists are not able to use their minds as intended.
GW: Intended by whom? I am an atheist and I use my mind as I intend and as my parents intended. I am curious, rational, and honest – the results of good intentions.
RT: Of yes, many atheists do have brilliant minds–except in the most important area–the acknowledgement of God’s existence!
GW: Brilliance or intelligence has nothing to do with it. Theists and atheists have about the same average intelligence, but theists have a deficiency in critical thinking skills and rationality, compared to atheists. For example, to properly conclude that God does not exist you must be able to skillfully use evidence and logic to understand arguments like the one I presented to you.
RT: “Only fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1 NLT).
GW: But the wise say it aloud!
RT: The true atheist is foolish because he/she ignores the evidence that God exists.
GW: I am an atheist and I have never ignored any of the evidence which you have presented to me. I have carefully considered and analyzed it. I have found it insufficient to draw the conclusion you have drawn. In fact, there are many sound arguments showing that God does not exist, and you have found no errors in the ones I’ve presented to you.
RT: Atheists, such as yourself, are in denial of the overwhelming scientific, astronomical evidence supporting the ‘Big Bang’ creation event (Genesis 1:1), in their/your desperation to believe “There is no God.”
GW: I completely agree that the Big Bang occurred, but completely disagree with your interpretation of it. You believe without justification that God exists and caused the Big Bang, whereas I believe it was just a transition event in an eternal universe. I gave three sound reasons to support my position, but you have given none to support yours. Besides that, we have many proofs that God does not exist, and you have found no errors in them.
RT: The complex sea of spinning stars and galaxies that make up the universe functions with amazing order and efficiency!
GW: They don’t “make” the universe that way. They are just evidence of the intrinsic orderliness of the universe.
RT: To say that the universe has ‘always existed,’ or ‘just happened,’ or ‘evolved,’ actually takes more faith to believe than to believe that “the Lord God Almighty . . . created” the universe (Revelation 4:8,11 NIV).
GW: I’ve never said the universe “just happened” or “evolved.” You are making up straw man arguments. But I have said the universe probably “always existed.” This belief requires no faith at all since there are at least three good reasons to support that belief, which I have presented to you several times. Your memory is short. It is your belief that requires the faith. Your god is a god of the gaps. If there is any gap in human knowledge, you just shove God into the gap and declare “God did it.” For example, there is a gap in human knowledge regarding a cause of the Big Bang, so you just shove God into the gap and declare “God caused the Big Bang,” even though you have no good reasons to justify this hypothesis. It is based mostly on wishful thinking. You wish that God did exist. Well, so do I! But you make a leap of faith to declare that God does exist, whereas I do not.
GW: You are still evading my argument and we know why.
Because of your commitment to atheism, your choice is to be in denial about a number of things, such as the following: The laws governing the universe had to exist prior to the ‘Big Bang,’ as scientists have discovered. Astronomers have discovered that no matter existed prior to the “Big Bang’. All scientific evidence supports the ‘Big Bang’ model, that the universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1). Almighty God Yahweh “established the laws of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25 NIV), prior to the beginning of the universe. God transformed some his energy into matter during the ‘Big Bang’ (E=MC2). Isaiah 40:26 says that God used his “great power” (NIV) to do this. Galaxies and stars are racing away from each other at ever-increasing speeds, just as Isaiah 42:5 says “the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out” (NIV).
RT: You are in denial about a number of things, such as the following:
GW: I am not “in denial.” I simply disagree with you about a number of things. Or maybe you are in denial of the truth which I have presented.
RT: The laws governing the universe had to exist prior to the ‘Big Bang,’ as scientists have discovered.
GW: Regularities or orderliness did exist in the universe prior to the Big Bang which was likely a transition event in an eternal universe. The natural laws don’t “govern” since they are not the products of legislation. They are descriptions of natural order.
RT: Astronomers have discovered that no matter existed prior to the “Big Bang’.
GW: Yes, and physicists and cosmologists agree with this. The primordial particle consisted of pure energy.
RT: All scientific evidence supports the ‘Big Bang’ model, that the universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1).
GW: No. I don’t know why you keep repeating the same error. You support one of about six possibilities and it is the least likely of the six. The most likely is that the universe is eternal and the Big Bang was just a transition event. I presented to you quotes from FOUR well regarded physicists and cosmologists who espouse this view.
RT: Almighty God Yahweh “established the laws of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25 NIV), prior to the beginning of the universe.
GW: You are still confused. Once again, natural laws are not legislated laws. Also, we now know that God does not exist, as shown by my argument which you keep evading. I am pleased that your consistent pattern of evasion is clearly documented on your own website.
RT: Galaxies and stars are racing away from each other at ever-increasing speeds,…
GW: Yes, that is a fact.
RT: just as Isaiah 42:5 says “the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out” (NIV).
GW: There were only three options for the author of Isaiah: 1) The heavens are expanding. 2) The heavens are contracting. Or 3) The heavens are remaining static. It’s not a big deal that he guessed #1 and that is correct since he had a 1/3 chance of being correct just by chance. But God does not exist, as has been shown by many proofs which you have evaded.
Did the Bible writers just guess, and get the science right? They got the science right, but it wasn’t guesswork, because “All scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16).In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22 NIV). “He suspends the earth over nothing” (Job 26:7 NIV). “The Creator of the heavens who stretches them out” (Isaiah 42:5 NIV). It wasn’t until the 20th century that it could be proven that the earth was round, and suspended in space, and that scientists were forced by their own discoveries to admit the universe had a beginning, and that the universe is expanding in all directions at an ever-increasing rate.
RT: Did the Bible writers just guess, and get the science right?
GW: Yes, sometimes they did. A good example is the expansion of the universe, as I mentioned yesterday. They had a 1/3 chance of getting it correct just by chance.
RT: They got the science right, but it wasn’t guesswork, because “All scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16).
GW: False. First, we now know that God does not exist. Secondly, some scripture has errors and contradictions, and that wouldn’t be the case if God did exist. And thirdly, scripture doesn’t include mention of scientific facts which it would mention if God did exist. Two examples I have mentioned before are the Big Bang and evolution. It never mentions either.
RT: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22 NIV). “He suspends the earth over nothing” (Job 26:7 NIV). “The Creator of the heavens who stretches them out” (Isaiah 42:5 NIV).
GW: All of these verses are false since we now know that God does not exist. The Bible is neither credible nor authoritative. You know it means nothing to me anymore. I outgrew it.
RT: It wasn’t until the 20th century that it could be proven that the earth was round, and suspended in space,…
GW: Nonsense. “In the 3rd century BC, Hellenistic astronomy established the roughly spherical shape of Earth as a physical fact and calculated the Earth’s circumference.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
RT: …and that scientists were forced by their own discoveries to admit the universe had a beginning,..
GW: Even today it has not been proven that the universe had a beginning of its existence. There are at least three good reasons to conclude that the universe is eternal, as I have presented to you before.
RT: and that the universe is expanding in all directions at an ever-increasing rate.
GW: True. These two discoveries were made in the 20th century. You could interpret one Bible verse in support of the expansion, but the authors had a 1/3 chance of getting it right by chance. The Bible says nothing about the “ever-increasing rate.”
You’re right, the ancient Greeks did theorize that since the sun and moon were discs, the earth must also be a disc, or round. However, the concept of a flat earth was still widely believed by many civilizations for many centuries. Yet, the Bible clearly trumped the 5th century BCE Greeks, because it boldly stated the earth was a “circle” in the 7th century BCE (Isaiah 40:22), a full two centuries prior to the Greeks. The vast majority of ancient civilizations also believed the earth was supported by a gigantic animal, such as an elephant, a boar, or an ox. However, 3,500 years ago, the Bible plainly stated the fact that there is “empty space” all around the earth, and that God “suspends the earth over nothing” (Job 26:7 NIV). These factual statements are not just lucky guesses, but evidence that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching” (2 Timothy 3:16 NIV).
RT: You’re right, the ancient Greeks did theorize that since the sun and moon were discs, the earth must also be a disc, or round.
GW: Why do you never say about yourself “I was mistaken”? There’s nothing wrong with doing that.
RT: However, the concept of a flat earth was still widely believed by many civilizations for many centuries.
GW: Well of course it was! Mistaken ideas, e.g. “God exists,” often linger in the minds of lay persons long after they are proven to be false.
RT: Yet, the Bible clearly trumped the 5th century BCE Greeks, because it boldly stated the earth was a “circle” in the 7th century BCE (Isaiah 40:22), a full two centuries prior to the Greeks.
GW: Yes, the Bible authors believed the earth was a flat circle, like a disc or a saucer.
RT: The vast majority of ancient civilizations also believed the earth was supported by a gigantic animal, such as an elephant, a boar, or an ox.
GW: Yes, there is some fairly good evidence for that other mistaken ancient belief.
RT: However, 3,500 years ago, the Bible plainly stated the fact that there is “empty space” all around the earth, and that God “suspends the earth over nothing” (Job 26:7 NIV).
GW: This is not a statement that the Earth is a spherical planet. If the Bible had been written, dictated, or inspired by an existing God, then it would make clear factual statements about a spherical Earth, the Big Bang, and evolution. It does not.
RT: These factual statements are not just lucky guesses,…
GW: They are not what you wish they are.
RT: but evidence that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching” (2 Timothy 3:16 NIV).
GW: We now know that God does not exist, and this has been proven by many sound arguments, including mine, which you continue to evade. The Bible is useful for teaching about myths, superstitions, and gullible thinking.
Let’s carefully analyze Isaiah 40:22. Like many Biblical verses, it explains much in few words. “He sits enthroned above circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in” (NIV). The Hebrew word translated “circle” is “chug”. This meaning of this word allows for the concept that the earth is a sphere. The earth is actually an oblate spheroid because it is very slightly flatter at the poles. Only a spherical shape allows for the earth to be viewed as a “circle” from all directions and angles. Therefore, based on the facts, the concept of sphere for “circle” (chug) in Isaiah 40:22 is very reasonable. Additionally, the verse says that he “stretches out the heavens like a canopy.” The Hebrew word for “stretches out” is “nata”, which means “extend, stretch out, spread out”. The verse goes on to say that “he spreads them out like a tent to live in,” using the word “tent” as a metaphor. In Biblical Hebrew “‘to stretch out’ the curtains of a tent” is symbolic of growth” (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2:574, by Harris, Archer, and Waltke). This ‘stretching out of the heavens’ matches the Big Bang theory. Contrast this with Aristotle, for example, who viewed the universe as being something rigid.
RT: Let’s carefully analyze Isaiah 40:22. Like many Biblical verses, it explains much in few words. “He sits enthroned above circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in” (NIV). The Hebrew word translated “circle” is “chug”. This meaning of this word allows for the concept that the earth is a sphere.
GW: Maybe, but iIt also allows for the concept that the earth is a flat disc, and this is more likely what the author meant since that model of the Earth was common at the time.
RT: The earth is actually an oblate spheroid because it is very slightly flatter at the poles.
GW: That is probably true.
RT: Only a spherical shape allows for the earth to be viewed as a “circle” from all directions and angles.
GW: In ancient times the Earth could not be viewed from all directions and angles. The most common model for the Earth at that time was a flat disc. Haven’t you seen the drawings?
RT: Therefore, based on the facts, the concept of sphere for “circle” (chug) in Isaiah 40:22 is very reasonable.
GW: Your belief that the ancients before Greek culture of 500-300 BCE believed the Earth was an approximate sphere is not reasonable.
RT: Additionally, the verse says that he “stretches out the heavens like a canopy.” The Hebrew word for “stretches out” is “nata”, which means “extend, stretch out, spread out”. The verse goes on to say that “he spreads them out like a tent to live in,” using the word “tent” as a metaphor.
GW: Yes, the ancients believed the sky was like a canopy over the flat disc earth. The canopy had holes in it which allowed light to be seen through the holes. This was the view of the stars.
RT: In Biblical Hebrew “‘to stretch out’ the curtains of a tent” is symbolic of growth” (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2:574, by Harris, Archer, and Waltke). This ‘stretching out of the heavens’ matches the Big Bang theory.
GW: A very poor match. Stretching out a canopy to cover the earth is very different from the Big Bang – expansion of the universe from a primordial particle. Not even close.
RT: Contrast this with Aristotle, for example, who viewed the universe as being something rigid.
GW: Both the writers of Genesis and Aristotle happened to be wrong. This is not surprising at all.
Observations by cosmologists show beyond any doubt that general relativity reliably predicts movements of massive bodies to better than a ten trillionth of percent precision. Dark energy gives evidence of a relatively recent cosmic beginning, proving that the universe is not eternal.This beginning is so recent that it defies all naturalistic explanations for the origin of life, and the history of life that makes possible the origin and existence of human beings who have highly technical abilities. Dark energy gives evidence of extreme fine-tuning of the universe. “Arranging the cosmos as we think it is arranged . . . would have required a miracle,” physicist Philip Ball, then a senior editor for the British journal Nature, said in an interview (Navigating Genesis, Appendix A). The existence of dark energy would suggest that an “unknown agent intervened in the evolution [of the Universe] for reasons of its own” (Universe From Nothing, p 123). As the Bible said 2,000 years ago, “the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Hebrews 11:3 NIV).
RT: Observations by cosmologists show beyond any doubt that general relativity reliably predicts movements of massive bodies to better than a ten trillionth of percent precision.
GW: You failed to provide a quote or citation for this claim, but it might be true. Nevertheless, it is irrelevant to your claims. Our universe was not a “massive body” just before the Big Bang. It was very tiny, perhaps less than the size of an atom. Thus, general relativity cannot be used to predict its movement. The other very reliable branch of physics is Quantum Mechanics which deals with small things. So far, scientists have been unable to combine General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into a coherent universal theory. This is why physicists don’t know what happened before the Big Bang. They don’t know and you don’t either. All we can do is speculate. Your speculation is the worst of about six which I previously enumerated.
RT: Dark energy gives evidence of a relatively recent cosmic beginning, proving that the universe is not eternal.
GW: False. Dark energy and the spreading out of galaxies give evidence of a primordial particle which began rapid expansion 13.8 billion years ago. We call the expansion “The Big Bang” and the rapidity “inflation.”
RT: This beginning is so recent that it defies all naturalistic explanations for the origin of life, and the history of life that makes possible the origin and existence of human beings who have highly technical abilities.
GW: False. The Big Bang was the beginning of a new phase of the universe, not the beginning of its existence. Prior to the BB the universe took the form of the primordial particle which was very small, dense, and hot, and we have discussed that many times before. The origin of life on Earth began 3.5 billion years ago which is 75% of the time since the BB. There is evidence that solar systems might have begun as early as one billion years after the BB which would be only 7% of the time since the BB. It is possible, even likely, that the first life began somewhere else, not on the Earth.
RT: Dark energy gives evidence of extreme fine-tuning of the universe.
GW: False. The theory of fine-tuning is a total bust, as I have already shown many times. It even begs the question.
RT: “Arranging the cosmos as we think it is arranged . . . would have required a miracle,” physicist Philip Ball, then a senior editor for the British journal Nature, said in an interview (Navigating Genesis, Appendix A).
GW: Mr. Ball is engaged in begging the question. He assumes that the cosmos was arranged by an arranger or designed by a designer or moved by a mover. This is all speculation for which there is no good evidence. He is in a minority of physicists, and he has allowed his religious beliefs to distort his understanding of science.
RT: The existence of dark energy would suggest that an “unknown agent intervened in the evolution [of the Universe] for reasons of its own” (Universe From Nothing, p 123).
GW: False. The existence of dark energy suggests no such thing. It is just a concept used to explain the rapid and continued expansion of the universe. There is no good evidence that any supernatural person pushed it. It’s fine to speculate that there was some god who did this, but it is not fine to believe it. You are failing to understand the differences of compatible evidence, incompatible evidence, and confirmatory or conclusive evidence. The BB is evidence compatible with the God hypothesis, but not confirmatory. But there is other evidence which is incompatible with the God hypothesis which thereby refutes it. See my argument for an example.
RT: As the Bible said 2,000 years ago, “the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Hebrews 11:3 NIV).
GW: God does not exist, and this has been proven. But the primordial particle before the BB could not be seen by the naked eye if naked eyes had existed at the time, which they didn’t.
GW: You are still evading my argument. It is good that your readers can see this on your own forum.
There is no ‘question begging’ in any of the facts presented above, nor is there any assuming that God exists without powerfully strong evidence that he does. “Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything” (Hebrews 3:4 NIV). The complexities that have been discovered about the universe give strong evidence of design, even more powerfully than the example of a house requiring a builder. Just as houses don’t build themselves, the universe did not build itself. The transformation of energy into matter at the beginning of the universe did not happen without a cause. That cause has to be God, the Creator. When you say (without any evidence) that there was a transformation of pre-existing energy from a pre-existing universe, you’re only only move the time backwards. You’re not proving anything. You’re only speculating against in the face of known scientific facts.
RT: There is no ‘question begging’ in any of the facts presented above,…
GW: First, most of what you present is not facts! You present mostly speculations, hypotheses, opinions, and beliefs. Secondly, the hypothesis of fine tuning is certainly question begging since for “tuning” to occur there must be a “tuner,” and you assume God to be the tuner. That is classic question begging.
RT: …nor is there any assuming that God exists without powerfully strong evidence that he does.
GW: You haven’t presented any such evidence. There is some evidence compatible with the existence of God, but it is also compatible with other competing hypotheses. For example, the evidence that a universe exists right now is compatible with the hypothesis that God exists and also with the hypothesis that the universe is eternal. But there is no conclusive, confirmatory, or dispositive evidence. We don’t know the answer, but you assume you do know the answer, and so you are engaged in question begging. We can properly assess which hypothesis is most likely to be true, and this is the hypothesis “the universe is eternal,” as I have repeatedly shown.
GW: Also, you continue to ignore the sound proofs that God does not exist.
RT: “Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything” (Hebrews 3:4 NIV).
GW: We know that the Bible is the source of your hypothesis, but that is neither evidence nor proof in support of your hypothesis. Who in the 21st century would develop their worldview on the basis of a book written two thousand years ago by primitive desert peoples?
RT: The complexities that have been discovered about the universe give strong evidence of design, even more powerfully than the example of a house requiring a builder. Just as houses don’t build themselves, the universe did not build itself.
GW: An analogy is not good evidence for a hypothesis. We know houses are built by persons because we watch them being built. We did not watch the Big Bang.
RT: The transformation of energy into matter at the beginning of the universe did not happen without a cause. That cause has to be God, the Creator.
GW: Here again, you are begging the question by assuming not only that the universe had a beginning, but that there was a Creator. You don’t know that. Nobody does. You are just speculating. I agree that the Big Bang probably had a cause. It might have been something as simple as this: “When a particle of energy exceeds quantity Q, exceeds density D, and exceeds temperature T, all at the same time, then it will rapidly expand at a rate R.”
GW: And once again, you continue to evade my proof that God does not exist. I am pleased that your readers are able to see the evasion on your own forum.
RT: When you say (without any evidence) that there was a transformation of pre-existing energy from a pre-existing universe, you’re only only move the time backwards. You’re not proving anything.
GW: Straw man argument. I did not say I was proving this. I am offering a hypothesis which is more likely to be true than the one you have presented.
RT: You’re only speculating against in the face of known scientific facts.
GW: False. I am speculating in alignment with all the known scientific facts. What are those facts? Approximately 13.8 billion years ago, a very small, dense, and hot primordial particle of energy began a rapid expansion which we call the “Big Bang.” The hypothesis of an eternal universe is compatible with those facts and is more likely to be true than your crazy hypothesis that God created the universe from nothing. Besides, we know for other reasons that God does not exist.