Was Jesus Created?
Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the ..." />
Was Jesus created? – No. not according many Bible scholars, preachers, creeds, and Christian denominations, who say Jesus has existed from eternity. Notice:
“The Son uncreated . . . the Son eternal”—Athanasian Creed
“Within the one Being that is God, there exists three eternally . . . coeternal persons”—The Forgotten Trinity, by James White, p 23
Since this is the case, why is there even any question about whether or not Jesus was created? — The reason why is because of what the Bible has to say.
Isn’t Jesus the creator? — Let’s see what the Bible says:
Colossians 1:15 – “He is the image of the invisible God; the firstborn of all creation” (ESV; NRSV; NAB). The “image” is never the same as, or equal to, the original. Also, Jesus was “firstborn”, which can never be said of Almighty God, and Jesus is referred to as part of creation, as “the firstborn of every creature” (KJV), therefore a “creature”, which can never be said of Almighty God. Jesus is clearly shown throughout the Bible to have a beginning to his existence. His “origin is from of old, from ancient days” (Micah 5:2 NRSV). The Trinity doctrine asserts that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, is eternal, but the scriptures, both the Old and the New Testaments, prove that idea to be false.
“Through him God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth . . . Everything was created through him and for him” (Colossians 1:16 NLT). Jesus is neither the originator, nor the Creator. Almighty God is, but notice that he created everything “through” Jesus. “Christ . . . is preeminent and supreme a God’s agent in the creation of all things” (NAB note on Colossians 1:16).
“The words of the Amen, the Faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation” (Revelation 3:14 ESV). This means that Jesus was created. Yes, Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15 ESV), or “of every creature” (KJV). God created Jesus, so Jesus is a creature, and, of course, a creature cannot be God.
There is one famous reference to Jesus, in a verse which predicts his birthplace, and mentions something very significant about his existence in doing so: “But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days” (Micah 5:2 NRSV).
Matthew 2:1-6 confirms that Micah 5:2 accurately predicted the birthplace of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. But Micah 5:2 also does something else very significant. It says that Jesus had an “origin”, a beginning, not with his birth on earth, but long before that, in the distant past. This scriptural fact overturns the key Trinitarian claim that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, has always been eternal, therefore “uncreated”. Jesus’ having an “origin” is powerful proof that he has not always been eternal, but was created.
John 3:16 – “God gave his only begotten Son” (NASB). “Only begotten” means that Jesus had a beginning. “Whose origins are from of old, from ancient times” (Micah 5:2 NIV), which clearly shows that Jesus had an “origin”, a beginning to his life, indicating that he was created by God. The Trinity doctrine claims that Jesus had no beginning, which means he’s God, so the most famous verse of the entire Bible (John 3:16) flatly contradicts the Trinity!
Proverbs 8:22 – “Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works” ( NJB).
Proverbs 8:22-30 – “The LORD begot me, the beginning of his works, the forerunner of his deeds of long ago. From of old I was formed, at the first, before the earth. When there were no deeps I was brought forth, when there were no fountains or springs of water; Before the mountains settled into place, before the hills, I was brought forth, when the earth and the fields were not yet made; nor the first clods of the world When he established the heavens, there was I . . . when he fixed the foundations of earth, there I was beside him as an artisan” (NAB),
Proverbs 8:22-30, above, has Jesus, as wisdom personified (1 Corinthians 1:24; Colossians 2:2,3), explaining about how he was created by Yahweh God. This harmonizes, of course, with the entire Bible, which shows that:
“God created everything through him”—John 1:3 NLT
“Through the Son he created everything”—Hebrews 1:2 NLT
The scriptures themselves debunk the Trinitarian “uncreated “different Jesus” (2 Corinthians 11:4 NLT), the “eternal uncreated God-man” of Trinitarians, and instead “have bartered for a different god” (Psalm 16:4 NASB).
31 thoughts on “Was Jesus Created?”
Of course Jesus of Nazareth was not created. He was born to a woman, probably Mary. She probably had sex with Joseph which resulted in the later birth of Jesus. There is no good evidence that any deity has ever created anything, including human beings.
In addition, God does not exist. We now know this and have proven it.
GW–There is no good evidence that any deity has ever created anything, including human beings.
BA–That view paints you into the corner of Abiogenesis, a theory that has been debunked by proven science.
Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis. It has neither been proven nor disproven. It is probably true and will probably be proven in the next decade. We might still be alive when it is proven.
GW—Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis. It has neither been proven nor disproven. It is probably true and will probably be proven in the next decade. We might still be alive when it is proven.
BA—Let’s see now . . . “hypothesis . . . neither need proven . . . probably . . . might”?
Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability. Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory. Perhaps this explains why researchers now are speculating that other events such as panspermia or an undiscovered life law are more probable than all existing terrestrial abiogenesis theories, and can better deal with the many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis.
GW—Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis. It has neither been proven nor disproven. It is probably true and will probably be proven in the next decade. We might still be alive when it is proven.
BA—Let’s see now . . . “hypothesis . . . neither need proven . . . probably . . . might”?
GW: Yes, that is a correct and current account of abiogenesis. Your account was incorrect since you said that abiogenesis had been disproven.
BA: Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed,
GW: False. It has become more likely to be true.
BA: and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability.
GW: False. You are implying here that abiogenesis has 0 probability of being true. I disagree. I estimate its probability to be at least .95.
BA: Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory.
GW: Provide a quote, citation, and link to support your claim here for THREE experts in this area.
BA: Perhaps this explains why researchers now are speculating that other events such as panspermia or an undiscovered “life law” are more probable than all existing terrestrial abiogenesis theories, and can better deal with the many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis.
GW: Panspermia is a legitimate hypothesis, but it would not explain the origin of life in the universe, even if it were true. Provide a brief description of an “undiscovered life law.” I have no idea what that is.
GW: We know that life has not always existed since the Big Bang. It started somewhere in the universe in some way by some cause. We just don’t know the answers to these questions. You are trying to promote a God of the Gaps idea. But we now know that God does not exist and have proven this. I even presented at least two of my own proofs of this, and you found no error in them.
GW: I have a new proof for you today. Please provide prompt, relevant, and civil feedback on it. Thanks.
Argument 123.
Argument Against the Existence of God Based on Destruction of Intelligent Life: 5-6-2025, 5-25-2025
1. Definition: God is 1) the hypothetical, unique, exclusive, supernatural, self-sufficient, free, spiritual, normally invisible person, conscious intelligent agent, or sentient entity (primary traits). He/she* is maximally enduring, present, intelligent, rational, knowing, creative, powerful, and resilient (primary traits). He/she wants, but does not need, loving relationships with other persons (primary trait). He/she is also maximally loving, compassionate, cooperative, and moral with respect to other persons (secondary traits). He/she is designer and creator of the cosmos, occasional interventionist in the world, and the afterlife manager who decides the favorable or unfavorable disposition of human souls after they die (secondary traits). or 2) the Greatest Imaginable Possible Person (the “GIPPer”) or ideal person who, if he/she existed, would possess all desirable traits to the highest degrees and no undesirable traits, and who would be worthy of our greatest respect, admiration, and worship. (*Since God would not have a sex or gender, I shall use both male and female pronouns to refer to God.) (29A)
2. If God did exist, he would finely tune the universe to produce and sustain intelligent life.
3. If God did exist, he would not finely tune the universe to first produce intelligent life and then to destroy it.
4. But our universe will inexorably result in the destruction of all life, including intelligent life, through the increase of entropy.
5. Therefore, God does not exist.
GW—2. If God did exist, he would finely tune the universe to produce and sustain intelligent life.
BA—The universe is finely tuned for life, but scientific evidence has proved that life only comes from life.
“The Lord God Almighty . . . created all things”—Revelation 4:8,11
GW–3. If God did exist, he would not finely tune the universe to first produce intelligent life and then to destroy it.
BA–True.
“Because thus says LORD JEHOVAH, who created the Heavens, and he is God who formed the Earth, and he made it and he has fashioned it: ‘It was not for nothing that he created it, but that his creation will dwell in him. I AM LORD JEHOVAH and there is no more’”—Isaiah 45:18 “Peshitta Holy Bible Translated
GW—4. But our universe will inexorably result in the destruction of all life, including intelligent life, through the increase of entropy.
BA—Not so.
The universe began with zero entropy and has remained at zero entropy due to the perfect increasing rate of expansion of the universe (Isaiah 42:5; 49:13).
This could not be the result of anything other than an all-powerful designer-creator.
GW—2. If God did exist, he would finely tune the universe to produce and sustain intelligent life.
BA—The universe is finely tuned for life, but scientific evidence has proved that life only comes from life.
GW: No, that claim has not been proven. That is your speculation. If it were true, then life did not come from God because God is neither alive nor exists! My hypothesis, which is being investigated by biologists, is that at least one time on the Earth life came from nonlife. This is the hypothesis of abiogenesis. It is probably true, but we do not yet know it is true.
“The Lord God Almighty . . . created all things”—Revelation 4:8,11
GW: That is just the claim of a Bible author with which you agree. Neither he nor you has any proof of it or even any good evidence for it. In fact, we now have sound proofs that God does not exist. You found no errors in these proofs which I presented to you.
GW–3. If God did exist, he would not finely tune the universe to first produce intelligent life and then to destroy it.
BA–True.
GW: Excellent! We agree.
BA: “Because thus says LORD JEHOVAH, who created the Heavens, and he is God who formed the Earth, and he made it and he has fashioned it: ‘It was not for nothing that he created it, but that his creation will dwell in him. I AM LORD JEHOVAH and there is no more’”—Isaiah 45:18 “Peshitta Holy Bible Translated
GW: Cherry picking translations again, I see. This verse says nothing about the possible destruction of creation. Also, we have proven that God does not exist.
GW—4. But our universe will inexorably result in the destruction of all life, including intelligent life, through the increase of entropy.
BA—Not so.
GW: Yes so. This is the conclusion of the consensus of physicists and cosmologists.
BA: The universe began with zero entropy and has remained at zero entropy due to the perfect increasing rate of expansion of the universe (Isaiah 42:5; 49:13).
GW: Wrong on every count! You are begging the question. You don’t know the universe “began.” Nobody knows that. At the Big Bang entropy was low, but it has been increasing ever since, and it will continue increasing till things are pretty evenly spread out and all life will be destroyed. Life will not be possible.
BA: This could not be the result of anything other than an all-powerful designer-creator.
GW: False. It could be just the way entropy works. You have not proven that there is any all-powerful designer-creator. If there were, it would not be God. God does not exist, and we have proven this. Would such a creator, not God, create a world to produce and destroy intelligent life? No, I don’t think so.
GW: If God did exist, why do you think he would create human beings?
Your assertion that the unproven abiogenesis theory will probably be proven is illogical.
An argument from ignorance is basically just an argument that fallaciously uses a lack of evidence as evidence of something else. In other words, it takes a gap in our knowledge, then inserts an assumption into that gap and attempts to use the gap as evidence that the assumption is true. Let me give you a few examples.
“No one has proved that Bigfoot doesn’t exist. Therefore, it exists.”
This argument is an argument from ignorance fallacy because it because it takes the gap in our knowledge, and inserts an assumption as if it is a fact. Do you see how that works? The fact that we have not proved with 100% certainty that Bigfoot doesn’t exist does not in any way shape or form constitute evidence that it does exist. Indeed, this example (and many others like it) attempts to shift the burden of proof. The person making the claim is always responsible for providing evidence to back up their claim. Thus, if you want to claim that Bigfoot exists, you have to provide actual evidence for its existence. You can’t simply appeal to the fact that it has not been 100% disproven. To use a related example, if someone believes in unicorns and you ask them for evidence that unicorns exist, they clearly can’t respond by simply saying, “prove to me that they don’t exist.” A claim has to have actual evidence to support it, not just a lack of evidence against it.
Now, let’s look at an example that is a bit closer to the topic of abiogenesis.
“Scientists can’t explain dark matter. Therefore, it is being created artificially by aliens.”
Hopefully you can see why that is a problem. I obviously cannot take our current lack of understanding and just insert aliens. Rather, I would need to provide actual evidence that the aliens existed, and I would need to demonstrate that science truly can’t explain it rather than simply showing that science hasn’t explained it yet
BA: Your assertion that the unproven abiogenesis theory will probably be proven is illogical.
GW: No, it is just a prediction which differs from your own. Mine is likely to come true, whereas yours is not.
BA: An argument from ignorance is basically just an argument that fallaciously uses a lack of evidence as evidence of something else.
GW: I’m not making an argument here. I am just making a prediction. You are making a category error in confusing the two.
BA: In other words, it takes a gap in our knowledge, then inserts an assumption into that gap and attempts to use the gap as evidence that the assumption is true.
GW: There is a gap in our knowledge. Right now we do not know how life started on the Earth, assuming it did. You are making another God of the Gaps argument. You are filling the gap with “God did it!” We’ve seen this movie before.
BA: Let me give you a few examples.
GW: Please do.
BA: “No one has proved that Bigfoot doesn’t exist. Therefore, it exists.”
GW: This example is not analogous to the abiogenesis situation. There is no good evidence that Bigfoot exists, so we should not believe it does. However, there is some good evidence that life came from nonlife on the Earth, but not enough evidence yet to prove it. I’m just predicting that we are likely to acquire enough evidence to prove it, oh probably in the next ten years. In the lab scientists will create conditions SIMILAR to those on the Earth 3.5 billion years ago, and they will see under the microscope simple living organisms emerge from the chemical mix.
BA: This argument is an argument from ignorance fallacy because it because it takes the gap in our knowledge, and inserts an assumption as if it is a fact. Do you see how that works?
GW: Yes, I know how that works, and it is exactly what you are doing. You are inserting God in the gap of our knowledge about the origin of life on Earth. God does not and cannot fill the gap. We’ve already proven that God does not exist.
BA: The fact that we have not proved with 100% certainty that Bigfoot doesn’t exist does not in any way shape or form constitute evidence that it does exist.
GW: I doubt that we can prove that Bigfoot doesn’t exist, but I know we can prove that God doesn’t exist. I’ve done it, and so have several others.
BA: Indeed, this example (and many others like it) attempts to shift the burden of proof. The person making the claim is always responsible for providing evidence to back up their claim. Thus, if you want to claim that Bigfoot exists, you have to provide actual evidence for its existence. You can’t simply appeal to the fact that it has not been 100% disproven.
GW: I agree. If you claim that God exists, then you have a burden of proof for that claim, a burden you have not come close to meeting. If I claim that God does not exist, as I have, then I have a burden of proof for that claim, which I have actually met. I have over a dozen proofs of this. I’ve presented a few to you, and you have found no errors in them.
BA: To use a related example, if someone believes in unicorns and you ask them for evidence that unicorns exist, they clearly can’t respond by simply saying, “prove to me that they don’t exist.” A claim has to have actual evidence to support it, not just a lack of evidence against it.
GW: Yes, we agree on the burden of proof, I think.
BA: Now, let’s look at an example that is a bit closer to the topic of abiogenesis. “Scientists can’t explain dark matter. Therefore, it is being created artificially by aliens.”
BA: Hopefully you can see why that is a problem.
GW: Of course that is a problem! Duh.
BA: I obviously cannot take our current lack of understanding and just insert aliens. Rather, I would need to provide actual evidence that the aliens existed, and I would need to demonstrate that science truly can’t explain it rather than simply showing that science hasn’t explained it yet
GW: Yes, I agree. None of your examples is analogous to the abiogenesis situation. We both agree that there is a gap in our knowledge there. We just differ on what is likely to fill the gap. God won’t fill it because we now know God does not exist. I and others have proven this.
“Let them be ashamed”—Ezekiel 43:10 NIV
Even though chagrined evolutionists deny it, abiogenesis theory rests on essentially the same myth as the scientifically debunked spontaneous generation theory, that is, life arising from non-living matter.
The abiogenesis theory, or “ABIO” for short, and spontaneous generation theory, or “SG” for short, are similar in the sense that they both assert that life can arise from nonlife and has done so through natural processes. However, they also have significant differences, and so your claim that they “rest on essentially the same myth” is mistaken. According to SG, the generation of life from nonlife can easily occur now under current conditions of the Earth, but according to ABIO, this not the case. It can occur under the conditions of the Earth present 3.5 billion years ago. According to SG, the generation of life from life occurred quickly, but according to ABIO it took about a billion years. In experiments aimed at demonstrating SG, nonliving molecules were not isolated from living spores, seeds, or organic molecules, whereas in experiments aimed at demonstrating ABIO, this is always done. SG has been debunked, as you said, but ABIO has not. There is a vigorous research program now going on regarding ABIO. It is likely that within the next decade, relevant scientists will demonstrate a living organism being produced from nonlife in the lab, and the conditions will probably be similar to those occurring 3.5 billion years ago on the Earth.
GW—The abiogenesis theory, or “ABIO” for short, and spontaneous generation theory, or “SG” for short, are similar in the sense that they both assert that life can arise from nonlife and has done so through natural processes.
BA—That’s point, the crux of both theories.
Such claims are entirely speculative, at best!
The assertion that “life can arise from nonlife”, has been scientifically debunked, and despite all sorts of claims that it can, it has never been observed, nor demonstrated, nor proven.
This is essentially the problem with the entire Macro-evolutionary theory — asserting what cannot be observed or demonstrated in the present, happened in the distant past over eons of time.
GW—The abiogenesis theory, or “ABIO” for short, and spontaneous generation theory, or “SG” for short, are similar in the sense that they both assert that life can arise from nonlife and has done so through natural processes.
BA—That’s point, the crux of both theories.
GW: But you just ignored the differences.
BA: Such claims are entirely speculative, at best!
GW: Absolutely not! You are misinterpreting the state of science on these two theories. SG was disproven decades ago. ABIO has not been disproven, is supported by some evidence, is probably true, and is a current and vigorous research area.
GW: Here is a good summary that I found for you:
“Summary
It is undeniably true that scientists do not yet have a complete chain of evidence, or even a fully-developed biochemical scenario for the origin of life — no knowledgeable scientist has ever claimed otherwise. Numerous scenarios have been explored, but there are still some unanswered questions. Nonetheless, thousands of scientific papers, documenting countless experimental studies, have been published on these topics, and several previous show-stopping obstacles, such as the formation of certain building blocks of RNA, have been overcome. Indeed, some of the above results, such as the recent results by Sutherland and Carell on the synthesis of RNA nucleotides, represent remarkable progress in the field. Almost certainly even more remarkable results will be published in the next few years. It would be utter folly to presume that no additional progress will be made.
Given these developments, most observers believe that it is extremely unwise to reject out of hand the possibility that research eventually will discover a complete natural process that could satisfactorily explain the origin or early development of life on Earth. Along this line, it may well be the case that all traces of the first self-reproducing systems and the earliest unicellular life may have been destroyed in the chaotic chemistry of the early Earth, so that we may never know for certain the precise path that actually was taken. But even if scientific research eventually demonstrates some plausible natural path, this would already defeat the claims of evolution skeptics that life could only have originated outside the realm of natural forces and processes. And, frankly, such a discovery could be announced at any time.
On the other hand, it may turn out that the origin of the very first self-replicating strands of RNA, to mention one unsolved aspect of this theory, is fantastically improbable, and present-day humans are descendants of this remarkably unlikely event, as suggested by Totani’s research mentioned above. But even here, nothing suggests that this origin event was the result of anything beyond the operation of known laws of physics and biology.
Either way, the line of reasoning by evolution skeptics, namely that the absence of a full explanation of abiogenesis invalidates the whole of evolutionary theory, implying that creationism and intelligent design must be considered on an equal par with evolution, is a classic instance of the “forest fallacy,” and has no validity whatsoever.”
https://mathscholar.org/2024/08/new-developments-in-the-origin-of-life-on-earth/
BA: The assertion that “life can arise from nonlife”, has been scientifically debunked, and despite all sorts of claims that it can, it has never been observed, nor demonstrated, nor proven.
GW: No, that idea has not been debunked. SG has been debunked, but ABIO has not. Yes, ABIO has not yet been observed, demonstrated, or proven YET. And it has not been disproven, as you have been claiming. You are misleading people on this topic. See above for the current state of science.
BA: This is essentially the problem with the entire Macro-evolutionary theory — asserting what cannot be observed or demonstrated in the present, happened in the distant past over eons of time.
GW: It is possible to rationally infer what happened in the past by making observations and experiments in the present.
GW: Just like SG, the God hypothesis has been disproven. Even I have done it. You have found no errors in my arguments.
All you have for support of Abiogenesis is “myths” and “speculations” (1 Timothy 1:4).
“Likelies” and “probablies”, like you’re asserting, often don’t happen. Around 1900, scientists thought there were canals on Mars, and the future would reveal there was intelligent life on Mars.
BA: All you have for support of Abiogenesis is “myths” and “speculations” (1 Timothy 1:4).
GW: ABIO is definitely not a myth, by any stretch of the definition. At this point ABIO is speculation, hypothesis, and belief at the same time! It is not YET fact.
BA: “Likelies” and “probablies”, like you’re asserting, often don’t happen.
GW: False. You are misunderstanding probability. Any event X has some probability of occurring in the future, and the probability ranges from 0 to 1, or 0% to 100%. Predictions are made in terms of probability. Predictions according to Reason or according to the consensus of experts are more likely to be confirmed later than those made according to other principles.
BA: Around 1900, scientists thought there were canals on Mars, and the future would reveal there was intelligent life on Mars.
GW: So what? Around 1900 some people predicted there would soon be “flying machines” and they turned out to be correct.
GW: I will bet you $50 that in the next decade relevant scientists will produce life from nonlife in the lab. Agree to take that bet? Yes or No?
GW: ABIO is definitely . . . not YET fact.
BA—True, Abiogenesis is not a fact.
Atheism is “built on the sand” (Matthew 7:26).
GW: I will bet you $50 that in the next decade relevant scientists will produce life from nonlife in the lab. Agree to take that bet? Yes or No?
BA—We don’t want to tae your money, you’ll lose for sure.
If we were betters, we’d bet you $500,000 on that one.
Following Bible principles, we don’t:
“set a table for Fortune . . . fill cups with mixed wine for Destiny”—Isaiah 65:11 LSB
GW: ABIO is definitely . . . not YET fact.
BA—True, Abiogenesis is not a fact.
GW: Not yet.
BA: Atheism is “built on the sand” (Matthew 7:26).
GW: False. Theism is built on sand, and atheism is built on rock.
GW: I will bet you $50 that in the next decade relevant scientists will produce life from nonlife in the lab. Agree to take that bet? Yes or No?
BA—We don’t want to tae your money, you’ll lose for sure.
GW: I’ll take that as a No. That’s what I expected. You don’t feel confident in your position.
BA: If we were betters, we’d bet you $500,000 on that one.
GW: I don’t believe you. I’d bet you wouldn’t bet that amount.
BA: Following Bible principles, we don’t: “set a table for Fortune . . . fill cups with mixed wine for Destiny”—Isaiah 65:11 LSB
GW: This is not a matter of fortune or destiny. This is a matter of confidence in prediction.
“You have abandoned the LORD and forgotten my holy mountain. You have prepared a table for the god of good fortune and offered cups full of spiced wine to the goddess of destiny.”—Isaiah 65:11 GNB
As Christians we reject any form of gambling, even if it’s a sure bet, such as your offer.
God does not exist to be abandoned. But I have abandoned belief in God. I was a Christian for 15 years and then over the course of one year I became an atheist. Why? Because I learned to think critically with reason.
Our bet would not be about destiny. It would be about our respective confidence in our predictions. “Put your money where your mouth is!”
Most Christians do not reject gambling. For example, sports gambling is a thriving business, and most of the gamblers are Christians.
GW—Most Christians do not reject gambling. For example, sports gambling is a thriving business, and most of the gamblers are Christians.
BA—It doesn’t matter what others do, we follow Bible principles, which let us know that gambling is a form of greed, and is not blessed by God.
“Therefore, consider the members of your earthly body as dead to . . . greed, which is idolatry” (Colossians 3:5 LSB).
“Wealth obtained from empty effort dwindles, But the one who gathers with his hand abounds”—Proverbs 13:11 LSB
GW—Most Christians do not reject gambling. For example, sports gambling is a thriving business, and most of the gamblers are Christians.
BA—It doesn’t matter what others do, we follow Bible principles, which let us know that gambling is a form of greed, and is not blessed by God.
GW: Gambling and Christianity are not incompatible, but it’s fine if you don’t gamble. By wagering $50, we would not be exhibiting greed. Neither you nor I need the $50. A $50 gain would have a minuscule effect. God does not exist to bless or not bless behaviors. We have already proven that God does not exist.
BA: “Therefore, consider the members of your earthly body as dead to . . . greed, which is idolatry” (Colossians 3:5 LSB).
GW: There would be no greed in our bet.
BA: “Wealth obtained from empty effort dwindles, But the one who gathers with his hand abounds”—Proverbs 13:11 LSB
GW: The one who gathers with his mind gathers even more.
While many churches condone gambling more or less, others stick with the Bible. For example:
Part of the SBC convention resolution to be considered very soon is:
“The rapid expansion of legalized sports betting presents significant spiritual, moral, ethical, and societal concerns,” explains the resolution.
Scientists are continuing their research regarding the abiogenesis hypothesis. Here is a new article relevant to the bet you refused to make because you fear your deity will punish you for betting.
Life on Earth May Have Been Jump-Started by ‘Microlightning’. Charged water droplets generate sparks that can forge organic compounds. By Cody Cottier edited by Sarah Lewin Frasier. March 14, 2025
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/life-on-earth-may-have-been-jump-started-by-microlightning/?utm_source=Klaviyo&utm_medium=campaign&utm_campaign=TIS_060325&utm_term=the%20energy%20in%20the%20spray%20was%20enough%20to%20spark%20the%20synthesis%20of%20organic%20molecules&_kx=nPxOIUHkkiJyGP5jqzb2ZhAZ2sjpfDa85OsJu0xzHSs.WEer5A
GW—Scientists are continuing their research regarding the abiogenesis hypothesis. Here is a new article relevant to the bet you refused to make because you fear your deity will punish you for betting.
Life on Earth May Have Been Jump-Started by ‘Microlightning’. Charged water droplets generate sparks that can forge organic compounds.
BA—Impossible!!!
“Natural science explores the roles of the four known forces of physics, statistical mechanics, mass/energy phase changes, mass transfer, and the application of the laws of physics and chemistry to most any problem. But there is one problem a purely physico-chemical approach does not and logically cannot address: abiogenesis’ pursuit and acquisition of functionality. The laws of motion do not perceive, value or pursue “usefulness.” The physics definition of “work” has absolutely nothing to do with utility. Pragmatism is not an issue in an inanimate environment. Yet, every process in life is highly functional and extremely sophisticated in its achievement of function. No basis for evolution exists yet in abiogenesis. Neither molecular stability nor mass self-replication of an RNA analog produces the slightest “biosystem,” let alone a proto-metabolism. Mere complexity doesn’t DO anything. Any hope of real advancement in abiogenesis research requires addressing the problem of an inanimate environment having valued and pursued “usefulness” and “functionality” prior to computational success (the “halting problem”).”—Fortune Journals, 4 August, 2024, “Why Is Abiogenesis Such A Tough Nut to Crack?”
GW—Scientists are continuing their research regarding the abiogenesis hypothesis. Here is a new article relevant to the bet you refused to make because you fear your deity will punish you for betting.
GW: Life on Earth May Have Been Jump-Started by ‘Microlightning’. Charged water droplets generate sparks that can forge organic compounds.
BA—Impossible!!!
GW: The facts of the experiments are reported in the article. But I think you are claiming that abiogenesis is impossible. False. Not only is it possible, it probably occurred. But we’ve already debated that.
BA: “Natural science explores the roles of the four known forces of physics, statistical mechanics, mass/energy phase changes, mass transfer, and the application of the laws of physics and chemistry to most any problem. But there is one problem a purely physico-chemical approach does not and logically cannot address: abiogenesis’ pursuit and acquisition of functionality.
GW: Abiogenesis does not pursue functionality. It is a hypothesis about the origin of life.
BA: The laws of motion do not perceive, value or pursue “usefulness.”
GW: But the laws of biology do in an indirect way. Any feature, property, trait, or structure which increases the probability or frequency of survival or reproduction for a species is “useful.”
BA: The physics definition of “work” has absolutely nothing to do with utility.
GW: Abiogenesis has to do with chemistry and biology, not physics. But none of the laws of chemistry and biology violate the laws of physics. They are all consistent.
BA: Pragmatism is not an issue in an inanimate environment.
GW: But bonding properties and stability of molecules are an issue.
BA: Yet, every process in life is highly functional and extremely sophisticated in its achievement of function.
GW: I thought we were talking about the origin of life.
BA: No basis for evolution exists yet in abiogenesis.
GW: Evolution has been confirmed in living organisms, and now there is research exploring a similar type of evolution of organic molecules prior to life.
BA: Neither molecular stability nor mass self-replication of an RNA analog produces the slightest “biosystem,” let alone a proto-metabolism.
GW: The first living organism probably did not have RNA. Also, RNA probably preceded DNA.
BA: Mere complexity doesn’t DO anything.
GW: False. Complexity usually produces emergent properties. For example, water has different and emergent properties from its constituent atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, taken separately.
BA: Any hope of real advancement in abiogenesis research requires addressing the problem of an inanimate environment having valued and pursued “usefulness” and “functionality” prior to computational success (the “halting problem”).
GW: No, it doesn’t. The problem to solve is what specific molecules bind together under what conditions to produce a living organism.
BA: Fortune Journals, 4 August, 2024, “Why Is Abiogenesis Such A Tough Nut to Crack?”
GW: A tough nut to crack is not a not impossible to crack.
GW: I’ve never heard of this journal. Google AI says: “Conclusion:
While Fortune Journals appears to have some positive aspects, the red flags mentioned above warrant caution and thorough investigation before considering it for publishing. It’s crucial to carefully evaluate the journal’s policies, review process, and contact information before submitting a manuscript.”
GW: I don’t think the deity you believe in would punish you for betting. After all, that same deity made a bet with Satan, according to the Book of Job.
GW: I don’t think the deity you believe in would punish you for betting. After all, that same deity made a bet with Satan, according to the Book of Job.
BA–False.
Which part do you believe is false and why?
GW—Which part do you believe is false and why?
GW: I don’t think the deity you believe in would punish you for betting. After all, that same deity made a bet with Satan, according to the Book of Job.
BA–-Both statements are false.
For now, focus on your last statement.
Yahweh did not make a bet with Satan.
Satan claimed Job would curse Yahweh, if Yahweh withdrew his blessings on Job (Job 1:8-11; 2:3-5).
Yahweh allowed Satan to basically do anything to Job except kill him (Job 1:12; 2:6).
There was no bet.
GW—Which part do you believe is false and why?
GW: I don’t think the deity you believe in would punish you for betting. After all, that same deity made a bet with Satan, according to the Book of Job.
BA–-Both statements are false. For now, focus on your last statement.
GW: No, they are both true! I can assure you that I do THINK your deity would not punish you for betting. And if God did exist, he would not punish you for betting. He would be impressed by the strength of your conviction. On the last statement, just re-read the story of Job to confirm my statement.
BA: Yahweh did not make a bet with Satan.
GW: Of course he did! To paraphrase, God said “I bet you cannot get Job to reject me, regardless of how much I allow you to torment him. The only thing I will not allow you to do is kill him.”
BA: Satan claimed Job would curse Yahweh, if Yahweh withdrew his blessings on Job (Job 1:8-11; 2:3-5).
GW: Yes, Satan bet that Job would reject God if Satan were allowed to torment Job. And God accepted the bet. Who initiated the bet?
BA: Yahweh allowed Satan to basically do anything to Job except kill him (Job 1:12; 2:6).
GW: That’s what I already said.
BA: There was no bet.
GW: Yes there was a bet. It wasn’t for money. It was for the satisfaction of being right about a prediction or maybe it was over control of one soul. In the story God won the bet which he made with Satan. But if Satan was serious about winning, he should have told one of Job’s friends to say to Job: “Have you ever considered that God doesn’t even exist? If he did exist, would he allow all these horrible events to happen to you in succession, especially since you have been a good man? But if an all-powerful deity does exist, maybe he isn’t God. Have you thought about that? If he did exist, God surely would not allow you to be tormented like this, if he did exist.”
GW: Of course now we know that God does not exist and we have proven this. I presented a few arguments to you about this, in which you have found no errors.
GW: I like this challenge: “Put your money where your mouth is.”
GW—Yes there was a bet. It wasn’t for money. It was for the satisfaction of being right about a prediction or maybe it was over control of one soul. In the story God won the bet which he made with Satan.
BA–False. There was no bet.
Satan falsely claimed that Job, whom Yahweh set forth as the the primary example of a Godly integrity-keeper, only served God for selfish reasons.
Yahweh allowed Satan the opportunity to prove his claim, by allowing him to do everything to Job but kill him.
Allowing that opportunity was not a bet.
GW—Yes there was a bet. It wasn’t for money. It was for the satisfaction of being right about a prediction or maybe it was over control of one soul. In the story God won the bet which he made with Satan.
BA–False. There was no bet.
GW: Of course there was a bet. You are mistaken.
BA: Satan falsely claimed that Job, whom Yahweh set forth as the the primary example of a Godly integrity-keeper, only served God for selfish reasons.
GW: Yes, and then Satan challenged God to a bet. Satan bet he could get Job to reject God after tormenting him. God took the bet.
BA: Yahweh allowed Satan the opportunity to prove his claim, by allowing him to do everything to Job but kill him.
GW: Yes, we agree on those points.
BA: Allowing that opportunity was not a bet.
GW: Of course it was a bet. I guess we need to agree to disagree on this issue.