WHO SHOULD WE WORSHIP?

WHO SHOULD WE WORSHIP?

“The true worshippers will worship the Father”—John 4:23

Jesus very clearly and unmistakably said that we should “worship the Father”. Trinitarians often claim “we should worship the Trinity” as their Athanasian Creed says. Most often they talk about worshipping Jesus, and sometimes they even claim to worship the Holy Spirit. But the Bible is crystal clear on this subject. This is not a gray area. There are no accurately translated scriptures that either direct us to, or have anyone worshipping Jesus, as you often hear. Jesus said in prayer that his “Father” is “the only true God” (John 17:1,3).

There are some verses that are often translated as though people actually “worshipped” Jesus. However, as mentioned above, accurate translations do not reflect that idea. Let’s look at these scriptures with accurate translations:

On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage”—Matthew 2:11 NRSV

And the men in the boat fell at his feet, exclaiming, ‘You must be the Son of God'”—-Matthew 14:33 REB

Suddenly Jesus was there in their path, greeting them. They came up and clasped his feet, kneeling before him”—-Matthew 28:9 REB

When they saw him they fell down before, though some hesitated”—-Matthew 28:17 NJB

They did him homage and then returned to Jerusalem with great joy”—Luke 24:52 NAB

“‘Lord, I believe,’ he said, and fell on his knees before him”—-John 9:38 REB

Again, when he presents his firstborn to the world, he says, ‘Let all God’s angels pay him homage'”—Hebrews 1:6 REB

When we look at the historical accounts of the early church, Acts through Revelation, do we find any valid instances of anyone worshipping Jesus? No, we don’t! Here are some examples of what we do find:

A worshipper of God”—Acts 16:14 NASB; 18:7 NASB

Worship God”—1 Corinthians 14:25; Revelation 19:10; 22:9

Worshipped God”—Revelation 7:11 NASB; 11:16 NASB; 19:4 NASB

A survey of the entire New Testament finds evidence of God alone being worshipped, and no evidence of Jesus or the Holy Spirit being worshipped. May we be guided by Jesus’ words above therefore!

31 thoughts on “WHO SHOULD WE WORSHIP?

  1. We should not worship anyone! The acts of worship are irrational ancient rituals which we can and should dispense with in the 21st century.

  2. You started the discussion here on “Bible Authenticity.” Why would you evade my comment here by trying to shift the discussion to another platform? That’s rude.

    Here is my definition: “To worship is to praise, pray to, and submit to another person, usually a hypothetical religious figure, sometimes by oneself but sometimes in a group. ‘The Pentacostal congregation worshiped the Almighty God for over two hours.'”

    Jesus was probably a real person, although he almost certainly performed no supernatural acts. On the other hand, God is just a hypothetical person. There is no good evidence that he exists. But why would anyone worship either of these two? That is not rational.

    We should not even worship current real people, e.g. Donald Trump.

    1. “He who created these things . . . So mighty is his power, so great is his strength” (Isaiah 40:26 NJB). E=MC2 proves that something can’t come from nothing. The scientifically proven fact that the universe had a beginning proves that God exists. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Logic also tells us there must be a Creator. “Every house is built by someone, of course; but God built everything that exists” (Hebrews 3:4 NJB).

  3. Here is my newest argument against the existence of God. Replies are welcomed.

    Argument Against the Existence of God Based on Covid: The Long Version (4-5-2021, 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 universe and sometimes intervenes in our world.*
    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/or 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 prevent any moderate to severe harm H1 to person Y or group of persons Z, IF 1) X certainly or probably knows about the opportunity to help by preventing, 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. Person X has a moral duty to attempt to prevent harm H1 if all seven contingencies are satisfied. Person X acts immorally if X does not attempt to prevent H1 when all seven contingencies are satisfied.
    8. Definition: The Covid Pandemic of 2019-2021is a set of harms which is current, severe, widespread, and indiscriminate. As of 4-5-2021, just in the US alone there have been 30,532,965 cases of the disease and 554,064 deaths from it.
    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 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 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.
    15. 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 pandemic; the Covid Pandemic would not exist.
    16. However, the Covid 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 14.7 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, or perfectly just. All these traits can be simply subsumed under ‘perfectly moral.’

    1. This is unconvincing. I dont mean to be rude, but it is a quintessential strawman

      A similar strawman could be constructed about small children analyzing whether or not their parents are ‘good’ logically. They created a proof with definitions and assert that they want…nay.. need fruit loops. The parents have the power and knowledge and means to procure and provide fruit loops. However they do not do it. Even though they know the anguish that the children are put through being denied fruit loops. Though they wail and gnash their teeth all day. Their gaze falls on other children with “good” parents that provide fruit loops.
      The small children conclude that since they have no fruit loops that their parents must in fact be “bad” parents

      1. Your analogy doesn’t work. Parents are real, but God is not. But if God did exist, he would be a perfect parent and would have prevented the COVID pandemic. Being harmed by the pandemic is nothing like children being without fruit loops. To suggest that the two are similar is to be insensitive to the victims of the pandemic.

        You have found no error in the argument, but thanks for trying.

        1. Would a perfect parent deny a child fruit loops. Inspite of the child’s desperation and desire and feeling like only they are denied what they desire while other children are frivolouslly given fruit loops?
          You trying to define perfect morality and impose your understanding of that on God is quite similar to the example of children and their understanding of a good parent or even a perfect parent

          Both yours and my examples have the weakness of being limited by subjectivity
          In your case the subjectivity of a finite mortal employing the construct of reason with finite data and imposing that standard on an infinite being that actually created the construct of reason.

          In my case a child subjectively imposing their standard for a good or perfect parent with the limited reasoning and finite data of a child. Finding their perceived needs unmet and concluding that the parents have failed the standard of good or perfect parents

          1. RT2: Would a perfect parent deny a child fruit loops. Inspite of the child’s desperation and desire and feeling like only they are denied what they desire while other children are frivolouslly given fruit loops?

            GW2: A perfect parent might deny a child fruit loops, depending on the circumstances. But a perfect parent would certainly prevent their own child from becoming ill, if they had the power to do so. Similarly, if God did exist, he would prevent the COVID pandemic from occurring to human persons.

            RT2: You trying to define perfect morality and impose your understanding of that on God is quite similar to the example of children and their understanding of a good parent or even a perfect parent

            GW2: If God did exist, he would have used reason to develop Correct Universal Ethics (CUE), i.e. a correct moral code, BEFORE he created any other persons. Furthermore, he would be perfectly moral by complying with CUE 100% of the time. We can also use reason to approximate CUE, and by doing this we develop moral rules like #7. If you think that #7 is not correct, then tell us what you believe is wrong with it and what would be better.

            RT2: Both yours and my examples have the weakness of being limited by subjectivity.

            GW2: Your analogy doesn’t work. It doesn’t have sufficient similarity to the God siuation.
            RT2: In your case the subjectivity of a finite mortal employing the construct of reason with finite data and imposing that standard on an infinite being that actually created the construct of reason.

            GW2: According to your own favorite book, God created man in his own image. If God did exist, reason would be a part of that image. What better tool do we have to solve problems and answer questions than reason? None. And now we have used this wonderful tool of reason to show conclusively that God does not exist!

            RT2: In my case a child subjectively imposing their standard for a good or perfect parent with the limited reasoning and finite data of a child.

            GW2: Suffering from the lack of fruit loops is hardly equivalent to suffering from a pandemic. Ross, get real!

            RT2: Finding their perceived needs unmet and concluding that the parents have failed the standard of good or perfect parents

            GW2: Let’s try to use some more realistic analogies with children: What if the child were suffering from measles and knew that the parent failed to get them vaccinated at an earlier age? What if the child were suffering and dying from diabetes for which the parents refused to seek treatment?

            GW2: So far you have found no error in my argument, but thanks for trying.

        2. You have asserted broadly that this proof is conclusive that God does not exist
          If this is the case, then why is it not front page news? Why has the whole world not become atheists?

          Your argument is akin to the many rapture theories and date setting set forth by Christians that hold the bible as magic and perfect. They declare with certainty that since the bible is perfect and magic that they cant be wrong
          They take for granted a series of presumptions about days for years and what events qualified for certain prophecies.

          Likewise your argument is put forth by yourself a finite being that is not all knowing. You have taken survey of the pandemic and with all your available finite data you have imposed that on God an all knowing being.
          So what is the gap between all of what you know and all of what an all knowing being knows? All knowing with reference to God is infinite knowing. Just as you are finite knowing

          The thing is regardless of the quantity of your finite knowing the gap of what you do not know, what lays between your finite knowing and the infinite knowing is infinity

          In other words the amount of data that you have not even taken into account on the spectrum of infinite knowing is staggering as it is infinite

          Yet others are expected to take for granted that you have made no oversights? No misplaced presumptions? It would be one thing to make such a claim for a measurable amount of finite data but to make it on an infinite absence of data? Shaky ground indeed.

          We havent even gotten into the tired subject of freewill which I grant you probably negate as a result of being an atheist but to consider both sides of the position is key to grasping the truth.

          God being all powerful, all knowing…to what extent should He respect sentient beings freewill. It certainly is a factor becasue the definition of freewill necessitates that s sentient being can make any choice they want…regardless of how any observer may judge that choice on a spectrum of good/evil

          1. GW3: I mistakenly thought that Ross Tucker (RT) had been making responses to me, but I now see that it was Memshin (M). Thus, I apologize to Ross for this error. Please mentally convert all “RT” to “M” responses above in the discussion of my argument.

            M3: You have asserted broadly that this proof is conclusive that God does not exist
            If this is the case, then why is it not front page news? Why has the whole world not become atheists?

            GW3: The argument is correct, but it is new. It may take time for it to be distributed, understood, and accepted.

            M3: Your argument is akin to the many rapture theories and date setting set forth by Christians that hold the bible as magic and perfect. They declare with certainty that since the bible is perfect and magic that they cant be wrong They take for granted a series of presumptions about days for years and what events qualified for certain prophecies.

            GW3: My argument has almost no similarity to rapture theories. It is based on reason, not faith.

            M3: Likewise your argument is put forth by yourself a finite being that is not all knowing.

            GW3: True.

            M3: You have taken survey of the pandemic and with all your available finite data you have imposed that on God an all knowing being.

            GW3: I haven’t imposed anything on God, who does not exist. I am presenting the argument to all human persons.

            M3: So what is the gap between all of what you know and all of what an all knowing being knows? All knowing with reference to God is infinite knowing. Just as you are finite knowing

            GW3: There is no good evidence that any all-knowing being exists. If God did exist, he would be all-knowing (see Step#1), but we now know that God does not exist.

            M3: The thing is regardless of the quantity of your finite knowing the gap of what you do not know, what lays between your finite knowing and the infinite knowing is infinity

            GW3: I know enough to know that God does not exist. You don’t yet know enough to know this, but you will after you fully understand the argument.

            M3: In other words the amount of data that you have not even taken into account on the spectrum of infinite knowing is staggering as it is infinite

            GW3: The finite data and knowledge which I have is enough already.

            M3: Yet others are expected to take for granted that you have made no oversights?

            GW3: Don’t take it for granted! Read, study, and ponder the argument. Ask me questions. Present your doubts. In the end you will see the light.

            M3: No misplaced presumptions? It would be one thing to make such a claim for a measurable amount of finite data but to make it on an infinite absence of data? Shaky ground indeed.

            GW3: So far, you have not found an error in the argument, but you are welcome to keep trying.

            M3: We havent even gotten into the tired subject of freewill which I grant you probably negate as a result of being an atheist but to consider both sides of the position is key to grasping the truth.

            GW3: Free will may be relevant to some arguments, but not to mine. If you disagree, then rationally demonstrate how it is relevant.

            M3: God being all powerful, all knowing.to what extent should He respect sentient beings freewill.

            GW3: Step#1 indicates that the definition of God includes “all-powerful” and “all-knowing.” Free will is irrelevant to my argument.

            M3: It certainly is a factor becasue the definition of freewill necessitates that s sentient being can make any choice they want.regardless of how any observer may judge that choice on a spectrum of good/evil

            GW3: If God did exist, he would have the free will to prevent or allow the pandemic, but otherwise I don’t see any relevance of free will to my argument. It is never mentioned in the argument.

  4. The world’s #1 atheist, Richard Dawkins, puts it this way; “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference . . . DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is and we dance to its music”. The moral implications of atheism are an unlivable world because everyone is just acting out their DNA. If God doesn’t exist, then objective moral rights don’t exist, including many that atheists support. We can reason:
    Every law has a lawgiver.
    There is an objective moral law.
    Therefore, there is an objective moral lawgiver.
    Or, every prescription has a prescriber.
    Since there is a prescription for every human behavior that is universally binding, there must be someone with the power and means to prescribe, and enforce it, forever.

  5. RT1: The world’s #1 atheist, Richard Dawkins, puts it this way; “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference . . . DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is and we dance to its music”.

    GW1: For the most part Dawkins is correct about this.

    RT1: The moral implications of atheism are an unlivable world because everyone is just acting out their DNA.

    GW1: Part of our DNA gives us cooperative, compassionate, and altruistic impulses. Even better, our DNA gives us the capacity of reason, and with reason we can design correct morality.

    RT1: If God doesn’t exist, then objective moral rights don’t exist, including many that atheists support.

    GW1: Objective moral rights exist, even though God doesn’t exist. The Bible even has stories which contradict our rights.

    RT1: We can reason: Every law has a lawgiver. There is an objective moral law.
    Therefore, there is an objective moral lawgiver.

    GW1: Yes, human persons are the objective moral lawgivers.

    RT1: Or, every prescription has a prescriber. Since there is a prescription for every human behavior that is universally binding, there must be someone with the power and means to prescribe, and enforce it, forever.

    GW1: Human persons have the power and means to prescribe correct moral rules and they do prescribe them. Enforcement is by individual governments and communities.

    1. Replying to the above, April 9 2021, post and your May 2 2021 post above.
      (1) You admit that your knowledge, and all human knowledge combined, is finite, or limited. The fact that we do not understand everything does not prove that God does not exist. “You do not understand how the wind blows, or how a embryo grows in a woman’s womb: no more can you understand the work of God, the Creator of all” (Ecclesiastes 11:5 NAB).
      (2) EC=2 has proven to be true, which means that something cannot come from nothing. The fact that the universe even exists at all proves that there has to be a Creator. “Every house is built by someone, of course; but God built everything that exists” (Hebrews 3:4);
      (3) The universe, all matter–both living and non-living, and innumerable symbiotic relationships, are far too complex to exist without a Creator. “I praise you, so wonderfully you made me; wonderful are your works.” “How precious to me are your designs, O God; how vast the sum of them!” (Psalm 139:14,17 NAB).

  6. RT2: Replying to the above, April 9 2021, post and your May 2 2021 post above.
    (1) You admit that your knowledge, and all human knowledge combined, is finite, or limited. The fact that we do not understand everything does not prove that God does not exist.

    GW2: We now know enough to know that God does not exist. I already presented the proof to you, and you have found no error in it, yet.

    RT2: “You do not understand how the wind blows, or how a embryo grows in a woman’s womb: no more can you understand the work of God, the Creator of all” (Ecclesiastes 11:5 NAB).

    GW2: We now know how the wind blows and how an embryo grows, and we also know that God does not exist. See my proof.

    RT2: (2) EC=2 has proven to be true, which means that something cannot come from nothing. The fact that the universe even exists at all proves that there has to be a Creator. “Every house is built by someone, of course; but God built everything that exists” (Hebrews 3:4);

    GW2: I agree that something cannot come from nothing. The basic units of the universe are “something” which did not come from nothing. Thus, the universe has always existed in one form or another, and it requires no creator.

    RT2: (3) The universe, all matter-both living and non-living, and innumerable symbiotic relationships, are far too complex to exist without a Creator.

    GW2: I disagree. We now know that evolution is responsible for the complexity of life.

    RT2: “I praise you, so wonderfully you made me; wonderful are your works.” “How precious to me are your designs, O God; how vast the sum of them!” (Psalm 139:14,17 NAB).

    GW2: Creationism is just speculation. The universe has always existed and always been both orderly and dynamic. No creator is required.

  7. No, you have not proven that God does not exist, not have you proven that no God is required, as you have asserted. While Macro-evolution has been very loudly, and widely, asserted, it has never been proven.
    You admit that DNA exists. DNA is the blueprint, or design, for life that every living thing has in each of its cells. Design does not happen without a designer. (Psalm 139:13-16).
    “Do you know the ordinances of the heavens; can you put into effect their plan on the earth?” (Job 38:33 NAB). Very powerful modern telescopes have been able to observe the farthest limits of the universe, in all directions, 13.8 billion light-years away. This means that light has had only 13.8 billion years to travel, and proves the universe is only 13.8 billion years old.
    The First Law of Thermodynamics is that something cannot come from nothing. The universe’s mere existence proves there must be a Creator-God.
    The Second Law of Thermodynamics is that all things tend toward entropy, and proves your eternally-existing universe belief false, because an infinitely old universe would be in a high state of entropy. The universe’s beginning in a highly ordered state, and its present highly ordered state, proves there has to be an outside influence from a Creator-God (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 3:4).

    1. RT3: No, you have not proven that God does not exist, not have you proven that no God is required, as you have asserted.

      GW3: I have presented you with a sound argument to prove that God does not exist, and you have found no error in the argument. Also, if the universe is eternal (and it probably is), then no creator is required. If something always existed, then it was not created.

      RT3: While Macro-evolution has been very loudly, and widely, asserted, it has never been proven.

      GW3: The experts in biology speak of only one evolution, not two. Evolution is a fact.

      RT3: You admit that DNA exists. DNA is the blueprint, or design, for life that every living thing has in each of its cells. Design does not happen without a designer. (Psalm 139:13-16).

      GW3: DNA is a particular organization of molecules, but there is no good evidence that anyone, divine or alien or human, designed it. It is almost certainly just a result of natural processes.

      RT3: “Do you know the ordinances of the heavens; can you put into effect their plan on the earth?” (Job 38:33 NAB).

      GW3: We now know the “ordinances of the heavens,” but we cannot put them into effect. This does not mean that somebody did put them into effect. They are almost certainly just a result of natural processes in the development of our solar system.

      RT3: Very powerful modern telescopes have been able to observe the farthest limits of the universe, in all directions, 13.8 billion light-years away. This means that light has had only 13.8 billion years to travel, and proves the universe is only 13.8 billion years old.

      GW3: It only shows that the universe has been expanding for 13.8 billion years. Nobody yet knows what happened before then, but it is likely that the universe is eternal.

      RT3: The First Law of Thermodynamics is that something cannot come from nothing. The universe’s mere existence proves there must be a Creator-God.

      GW3: We agree that the universe did not come from nothing. There are several possible explanations, the best of which is that the universe is eternal, no creation or creator required.

      RT3: The Second Law of Thermodynamics is that all things tend toward entropy, and proves your eternally-existing universe belief false, because an infinitely old universe would be in a high state of entropy.

      GW3: False. The universe could still be eternal under either of these two scenarios:
      1) At some point entropy will reverse and begin decreasing in our universe. Or
      2) There is more to the cosmos than our universe and the increase in our entropy is counterbalanced by a decrease in entropy elsewhere.

      RT3: The universe’s beginning in a highly ordered state, and its present highly ordered state, proves there has to be an outside influence from a Creator-God (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 3:4).

      GW3: False. Although entropy is increasing, the Big Bang was very likely a transition event for an eternal universe. No creator is required for an eternal universe. The hypothesis of an eternal universe is simpler than the hypothesis of a God-created universe. The latter implies creation of something from nothing, which we have already agreed is not possible.

      1. Obviously, you’re not too sure of what’s what. You say, “If the universe is eternal (and it probably is). . . “; “DNA . . . is almost certainly just a result of natural processes”; “It is likely that the universe is eternal”; “There are several possible explanations”; “The universe could still be eternal . . . “; “The Big Bang was likely a transition event . . . “; “The hypothesis of an eternal universe . . . “. You’re free to believe whatever you want to, but facts aren’t changed by someone’s belief, or non-belief. Facts are still facts, regardless of anyone’s belief or non-belief (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25). Scientists, over the past century, as a result of their own evidence-based discoveries, have been forced to admit that the universe had a “beginning” (Genesis 1:1). No one disputes Micro-evolution, the variances within living “kinds”, such as grass, dogs, cats, bears, horses, oaks, pines, palms, cedars, firs, maples, warblers, hawks, sparrows, beetles, worms, dragonflies, butterflies, moths, bees, whales, sardines, turtles, toads, frogs, alligators, etc (Genesis 1:11,12, 21, 24,25). However, there is zero evidences. It is the Macro-evolutionary alleged changing from one of these “kinds” to another “kind” that has never been observed, nor documented. There is no evidence of anything existing in the material universe prior to 13.8 billion years ago. In spite of your denials, since you agree that something can’t come from nothing, you’re in effect, admitting there is a Creator. There is no evidence that entropy has, or is, increasing in the universe. This continuing highly ordered universe proves there is a Creator.

  8. RT4: Obviously, you’re not too sure of what’s what.

    GW4: I know some things, believe other things, and speculate about others, no different from you in that respect. We just embrace different ideas.

    RT4: You say, “If the universe is eternal (and it probably is). . . “; “DNA . . . is almost certainly just a result of natural processes”; “It is likely that the universe is eternal”; “There are several possible explanations”; “The universe could still be eternal . . . “; “The Big Bang was likely a transition event . . . “; “The hypothesis of an eternal universe . . . “.

    GW4: I proportion by confidence to the evidence, as everybody should.

    RT4: You’re free to believe whatever you want to, but facts aren’t changed by someone’s belief, or non-belief. Facts are still facts, regardless of anyone’s belief or non-belief (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25).

    GW4: I agree with that. It is a fact that you exist and God does not exist, regardless of your beliefs.

    RT4: Scientists, over the past century, as a result of their own evidence-based discoveries, have been forced to admit that the universe had a “beginning” (Genesis 1:1).

    GW4: That was the prevailing opinion about 25-50 years ago, but no longer. The cosmologists have a wide diversity of views about the issue of a beginning vs no beginning of the universe. I agree with the newer group who think the universe is eternal (see Steinhardt and Turok).

    RT4: No one disputes Micro-evolution, the variances within living “kinds”, such as grass, dogs, cats, bears, horses, oaks, pines, palms, cedars, firs, maples, warblers, hawks, sparrows, beetles, worms, dragonflies, butterflies, moths, bees, whales, sardines, turtles, toads, frogs, alligators, etc (Genesis 1:11,12, 21, 24,25). However, there is zero evidences. It is the Macro-evolutionary alleged changing from one of these “kinds” to another “kind” that has never been observed, nor documented.

    GW4: According to the consensus of biologists there is only one evolution, and it is a fact of biology, regardless of your beliefs.

    RT4: There is no evidence of anything existing in the material universe prior to 13.8 billion years ago.

    GW4: I agree with you on that point. We already agreed that something cannot come from nothing, and thus the material primordial particle present at the Big Bang could not have come from nothing. Our knowledge ends with the Big Bang; we can only speculate about before this event. I believe the universe is eternal, and I already gave you two reasons why this is probably the case.

    RT4: In spite of your denials, since you agree that something can’t come from nothing, you’re in effect, admitting there is a Creator.

    GW4: Absolutely not. You are distorting my position, and that’s unethical. The universe is probably eternal, and thus would not require a creator. I just think the universe is eternal like you think a creator would be eternal.

    RT4: There is no evidence that entropy has, or is, increasing in the universe.

    GW4: You are simply mistaken about this. There is no evidence that entropy is constant or decreasing. It is increasing, moving towards more disorder.

    RT4: This continuing highly ordered universe proves there is a Creator.

    GW4: It is likely that order and change are inherent and eternal features of an eternal universe. We know that God does not exist.

  9. Scientists’ observations tell us that because the present universe contains burning stars, heat engines, and life, the early universe had to be in an extremely low entropy state, which implies very fine-tuning of the early universe. Thus, a designer, and Creator, is the only viable option.

  10. RT5: Scientists’ observations tell us that because the present universe contains burning stars, heat engines, and life, the early universe had to be in an extremely low entropy state, which implies very fine-tuning of the early universe. Thus, a designer, and Creator, is the only viable option.

    GW5: “Only viable option”? No way. I agree that the entropy of the primordial particle was low, but this in no way implies any fine-tuning, designer, or creator. It probably means that the low entropy was just a result of natural processes which preceded it. There is no reason to make an extra assumption of a designer. That would violate Ockham’s Razor. Besides, we already know that God himself doesn’t exist.

    1. While Occam’s razor is a general principle, it isn’t an inviolable principle, because it doesn’t solve everything, and admittedly has exceptions. “Do you know the laws of the heavens” (Job 38:33 NIV). Laws can only come about as a result of a lawgiver. “Praise him, sun and moon: praise him, all shining stars. Praise him, highest heavens, waters above the heavens. Let them praise the name of Yahweh; at whose command they were made; he established them for ever and ever, by an unchanging decree” (Psalm 148:3-6 NJB). The physical laws that govern the entire universe are constant and unchanging. It is impossible for such precision to come about without direction from a controller.

      1. RT6: While Occam’s razor is a general principle, it isn’t an inviolable principle, because it doesn’t solve everything, and admittedly has exceptions.

        GW6: Compliance with Ockham’s Razor is one of a few advantages of the eternal universe hypothesis when compared to the created universe hypothesis. In addition, the latter violates your own conclusion that something cannot come from nothing.

        RT6: “Do you know the laws of the heavens” (Job 38:33 NIV). Laws can only come about as a result of a lawgiver.

        GW6: You are ignoring what we discussed previously – there are two types of laws: 1) descriptive laws which describe the way the universe works (the physical or natural laws), and 2) prescriptive laws which prescribe the ways persons should and should not act. Only the latter must come from one or more lawgivers.

        RT6: “Praise him, sun and moon: praise him, all shining stars. Praise him, highest heavens, waters above the heavens. Let them praise the name of Yahweh; at whose command they were made; he established them for ever and ever, by an unchanging decree” (Psalm 148:3-6 NJB).

        GW6: There is no point in praising God who does not exist. See my proof.

        RT6: The physical laws that govern the entire universe are constant and unchanging. It is impossible for such precision to come about without direction from a controller.

        GW6: Please show how the constancy or reliability of the physical laws is impossible without a governing person. Once again, physical laws are just descriptions of the way the universe works.

        1. See “Fine Tuned Universe”, “Examples”, on Wikipedia, to see just how staggering are the odds that the universe could exist without a Creator-Designer.

  11. I am very familiar with the fallacious Fine Tuning Argument. It has been debunked many times by many people. For my analysis of it, see pages 83-85 of my book “God Wants You to be an Atheist,” which I believe you have a copy of. Anyone else can get a copy through Amazon.

    1. Neither you, nor anyone else, has ever debunked the obvious fine-tuning of the universe, and all matter in it. “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the argument of Paley—updated and refurbished, The fine-tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design” (“Why I Am a Christian”, by cosmologist Ed Harrison, p 142).

      1. RT7: Neither you, nor anyone else, has ever debunked the obvious fine-tuning of the universe, and all matter in it.

        GW7: It is easy to debunk, and many persons have done it. Read the relevant books by Victor Stenger for debunking by a physicist. People debunk ideas, not matter.

        RT7: “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God-the argument of Paley-updated and refurbished, The fine-tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design” (“Why I Am a Christian”, by cosmologist Ed Harrison, p 142).

        GW7: Harrison is correct about one thing – the fine tuning argument is just a new type of design argument. How do you know that the “constants” of the universe were finely tuned? There is no good evidence that the “constants” could have been different than what they are. They are called “constants” for a reason.

        GW7: We know that God does not exist. See my argument, in which you have still found no error.

        1. “Every house is built by someone, of course, but God built everything that exists” (Hebrews 3:4 NJB).
          “We should indeed be awed and staggered by this series of coincidences: that the electromagnetic radiation of the sun should be restricted to a tiny region of the total electromagnetic spectrum, equivalent to one specific playing card in a deck of 10 [raised to the 25th power] cards stretching across the universe; that the very same infinitely minute region should be precisely that required for life; that the atmospheric gases should be opaque to all regions of the spectrum except this tiny region; that water should likewise be opaque to all regions of the spectrum save this infinitesimally tiny region, etc. It is as if a cardplayer had drawn precisely the same card on four occasions from a deck of 10 [raised to the 25th power]”—-Nature’s Destiny, by agnostic microbiologist Michael J Denton
          Based on these scientific odds, it is impossible that God does not exist. It is even more impossible than the chance that all the materials that your house is made of could come together in the form of your house, and your finished home powered by electricity by chance.

          1. RT8: “Every house is built by someone, of course, but God built everything that exists” (Hebrews 3:4 NJB).

            GW8: This is possible, but there is insufficient evidence to believe it is true.

            RT8: “We should indeed be awed and staggered by this series of coincidences: that the electromagnetic radiation of the sun should be restricted to a tiny region of the total electromagnetic spectrum, equivalent to one specific playing card in a deck of 10 [raised to the 25th power] cards stretching across the universe;

            GW8: The analogy does not work because we don’t know the number of possibilities for the radiation to be different from what it is, but we know that the number of cards in a deck is 52. We know of only one universe. By analogy, the deck could have only one card in it.

            RT8: …that the very same infinitely minute region should be precisely that required for life;

            GW8: Was it finely tuned for stars, planets, black holes, tsunamis, atomic weapons, or rapes! Look what the universe has produced! As far as we know, life is a tiny percentage of the things which exist in this universe.
            RT8: …that the atmospheric gases should be opaque to all regions of the spectrum except this tiny region; that water should likewise be opaque to all regions of the spectrum save this infinitesimally tiny region, etc.

            GW8: Maybe there are no other physical options.

            RT8: It is as if a cardplayer had drawn precisely the same card on four occasions from a deck of 10 [raised to the 25th power]”–Nature’s Destiny, by agnostic microbiologist Michael J Denton

            GW8: Nobody knows the size of the deck for universes because we have only one universe to look at.

            RT8: Based on these scientific odds, it is impossible that God does not exist.

            GW8: Impossible? Nonsense. There are a few possibilities: 1) The constants are unchangeable; they could not have any other value. 2) The constants are changeable, but the range of possibilities is very small, and the actual values came about by chance. 3) The constants are changeable, but the range of possibilities is large, and the actual values came about by chance. Or 4) the constants are changeable and were selected by some intelligent agent not God. We don’t know the answer because we don’t have enough evidence to judge which possibility is correct. However, we already know that God does not exist based on moral grounds. See my argument for this.

            RT8: It is even more impossible than the chance that all the materials that your house is made of could come together in the form of your house, and your finished home powered by electricity by chance.

            GW8: “More impossible”? Impossible does not exist in degrees. Something is either impossible or it isn’t. The idea that the universe is like a house is just an analogy, and there is no sufficient evidence to support the idea that the universe was designed and created by an intelligent agent. Even if it were, that intelligent agent could not be God because God is ruled out on moral grounds.

            GW8: The conclusion of my argument still stands – God does not exist. You have found no error in the argument, but you are welcome to keep trying.

  12. “I should consider that I know nothing about physics if I were unable to explain only how things might be, and were unable to demonstrate that they could not be otherwise”—Rene’ Descartes, letter to Mersenne, 1640

  13. “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
    Albert Einstein in Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com