One of my favorite book titles is I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek. But I think Ray Comfort’s new book title comes in for a close second: You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can’t Make Him Think. That is classic!
February 25, 2009
New Apologetics Book Countering Atheism
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheism[30] Comments
Thinking to Believe 
February 25, 2009 at 5:52 pm
“you can show a christian a total lack of evidence, but you can’t make him reconsider”
I’m not an atheist, I’m agnostic, and was a christian until a year ago, when looking at the evidence to back up the NT I found very little, nowhere near enough to base a faith upon.
what’s this evidence that proves christianity?
LikeLike
February 25, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Hello ophalm,
What sources did you seek out in your search for evidence? Have you read Christian apologists? If so, which ones?
What would constitute good evidence in your view? Furthermore, is there evidence you believe inveighs against Christianity being true? If so, what?
Jason
LikeLike
February 25, 2009 at 6:31 pm
I’ve read a couple of books. But generally what I see is (other than the NT itself) is a couple of contemporary writers that discuss that someone called Jesus existed and that a religion came from it. There’s a few more details but that’s about it from what I can tell. And to me that’s not enough to base a life, a faith, a religion on.
What would I require? A lot more contemporary writers that actually confirmed the miracles and the resurrection. And something from today, some real evidence for christianity, not just anecdotal evidence.
My evidence against christianity is mainly the almost total lack of evidence for it, and that based on that amount of evidence, it’s about as likely as any of the current religions, so why christianity, why not islam?
I see no evidence of God in the world. Before science maybe, but now everything I see can be explained without having to invoke something as untestable as God.
LikeLike
February 25, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Jason doth protest too much, methinks.
LikeLike
February 26, 2009 at 12:29 am
“What would constitute good evidence in your view?”
Familiar with D&D?
“Furthermore, is there evidence you believe inveighs against Christianity being true? ”
Argument from evil, from other religions, etc.
LikeLike
February 26, 2009 at 10:25 am
ophalm: Have you read “Case for Christ”?
LikeLike
February 26, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I haven’t read it, I’ve heard of it though, but I seriously wonder what it could offer me that I haven’t already seen. I didn’t lose my faith easily, it was a struggle and I asked many questions. At the end of the day I have to seek truth – regardless of where it lead me. Now I am agnostic
LikeLike
February 26, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Get the book form the library and read it. Its not long and it is an easy read. I would be very interested in hearing your response. Email me your review of the book, coville@gmail.com
LikeLike
February 26, 2009 at 6:51 pm
ophalm, there were plenty of people that refused to believe in Christ that witnessed His miracles. I’ve known people that have seen and still reject Him, it blows my mind. I think God knows that miracles don’t draw people in a committed and intensely passionate way, it’s something else, I think it’s a heart response for what Christ did on the cross for us. And for His tenderness and mercy that He pours out on us at His own expense, because He paid the price.
When we’re apart from Christ, when we don’t know Him, I think some of us sense the emptiness, the sense that something isn’t right within. Some seek the answers, some just fill up their lives with nonsense, but it’s that calling that compells us to seek and find.
It’s that filling of the Holy Spirit that grabs us, keeps us, holds us tight. Not miracles. We might be impressed for a while with miracles but it seems to always fade. Can you imagine if you moved mountains for your fiance’s attention only to watch him or her get bored and wander off after a while? Why would God break His own heart like that?
God reveals Himself to those who love and obey Him. If you want to know Him, wrap your mind around what Christ did on the cross for you. I can’t imagine comprehending that and not being blown away with love and gratitude. That was all I could see when I saw a mere depiction of it in The Passion of the Christ. Total love. That anyone would do that for me reached right down into my soul and…it’s inexpressable. And that was just from watching a representation of it, I can’t imagine being in the body of Christ and feeling the pain and yet HE STILL WALKED UP THAT HILL TO THAT CROSS!
So try to grasp what He’s done for you, and then take a step of faith and obey whatever He asks. He doesn’t overwhelm us and even helps us obey if we ask. Just ask.
God reveals Himself to those who love and obey Him. John 14:15-21
LikeLike
February 27, 2009 at 8:06 am
lol I am such a goof! This is a total woman response, men have nothing on us in relating to the Lord emotionally. But generally men want the facts…
(sneaking out of the room)
LikeLike
February 28, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Ophalm,
What is the name of the books you read? Based on your response, I think it’s safe for me to conclude that you are not familiar with apologetics resources out there. They do not merely “discuss that someone called Jesus existed and that a religion came from it,” but give rational, objective reasons for believing Christianity to be true. I would highly suggest you read the works of William Lane Craig (Reasonable Faith, reasonablefaith.org), Lee Strobel (The Case for Christ), Norm Geisler (I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist), and Greg Koukl (str.org).
William Lane Craig specializes in the historical evidence for the Resurrection (as well as the origin of the universe). You can read some of his articles for free online (reasonablefaith.org). For an in-depth scholarly look at the subject, I would suggest getting N.T. Wright’s work, The Resurrection of the Son of God. I have an article on my website regarding the historical evidence for the resurrection you may wish to check out as well (apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/resurrection.htm)
As for miracles in general, it is usually difficult to demonstrate their historicity. For most miracle accounts, we lack enough information to do a thorough investigation. The wider question is if miracles are possible. This question is contingent on the question of God’s existence. If God exists, then surely miracles are possible. Conversely, the more evidence we have that a certain miracle-claim is true (like the resurrection), the more evidence we have that God exists, since miracles could not happen otherwise.
It is a logical fallacy to assume that an absence of evidence indicates evidence of absence. Something could still be true, even if there is no evidence for it. Consider Paul Dirac’s hypothesis that every particle of matter has an anti-particle. He believed that without any evidence. It was later confirmed by another scientist. Before that happened, there was no evidence. If you would have told him that the evidence against his view is the lack of evidence for it, you would have been mistaken. Now, a lack of evidence for some view may justify you in suspending judgment about its truth value, but it does not justify you passing judgment that it is false. As atheist Kai Nielson recognized, even if all proofs for God’s existence fail it could still be the case that God exists. To disprove something, you need positive evidence against it.
As for science’s ability to explain everything without reference to God, I hate to inform you that you’ve been hoodwinked. Let me just point out three areas that scientists are pretty clueless about: the origin of life, the origin of the universe, and the mind. Their have been many theories put forth about the origin of life, but none of them are viable. I can quote you origin of life scientists who admit that the more they learn about what is required to get life going, the more it seems impossible. The more they study it, the less they know. The fact of the matter is that no one can explain how life arose.
The origin of the universe is just as difficult. What caused it? Guess what? No one knows. Indeed, science cannot even try to answer the question because it can only address the physical world, and whatever caused the physical world to exist was not itself physical.
And finally the mind. Scientists are completely baffled in trying to explain the origin of conscious minds. How could matter give rise to consciousness? They have no idea.
This is not to say God is needed only to explain what science can’t. That’s a wrong way to look at things. But it is to say that you have more confidence in science than scientists themselves.
LikeLike
February 28, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Samuel Skinner,
D&D, as in Dungeons and Dragons?
You think that evil inveighs against the existence of God, and the fact that a lot of people aren’t Christians. Let me take these in order.
I’ll agree with you that the problem of evil is a genuine problem, but it can only be a problem if God exists. It is not an argument against God, but for God. Let me explain.
The argument against the existence of God based on the existence of evil in the world fails because it presupposes that evil exists in an objective sense, and yet only the existence of a transcendent source of goodness (God) can give meaning to objective evil.
What is evil? Evil is a value judgment that is measured against a universal standard of goodness. Evil is a departure from that standard. If evil is objective (meaning there really are things that are wrong independent of what we humans may think about them), it can only be due to the fact that there is an objective standard of goodness that transcends man. But where does this standard come from? From man? No. Man cannot transcend himself. If man is the measure of all things there can be no absolute good and evil. Good and evil are relative to the individual. We would be left with the mere likes and dislikes of men. You like ice-cream, I like chocolate; Hitler likes to kill Jews, I like to save Jews. Who is to say who is right? A transcendent source is necessary to ground an objective ethic. Only a personal being who transcends mankind is capable of providing a universal and absolute standard of goodness; therefore, the existence of God is necessary to account for the genuine existence of evil.
If there is no God, there is no transcendent objective standard of goodness, and thus all morals are relative. And if morals are relative, the argument against God’s existence based on the existence of evil is meaningless because evil does not exist as such. “Evil” is a relative term describing the subject who contemplates it (personal commentary); not a description about the object itself. For the moral relativist to complain about the problem of evil is as intelligible as arguing that God cannot exist because they don’t like broccoli.
In summary, you can’t know what evil is unless you know what is good. And you can’t know what is good unless there is an unchanging standard of good outside yourself. Without that objective standard, any objection to evil is nothing but your personal opinion. If God doesn’t exist there is no evil to complain about, and if evil doesn’t exist (in an objective sense) there is no argument to be made. The genuine existence of evil, then, is one of the best pieces of evidence for the existence of God.
As for other religions, how is this evidence against Christianity?
LikeLike
February 28, 2009 at 3:20 pm
jasondulle
I appreciate the thought out answer you gave.
Maybe I will look into those books, I know a friend with one of them. I read “Is the NT history” and a couple others.
I am a scientist myself. I know science doesn’t have all the answers. But it’s only 2009, I don’t expect it to. 70 years ago we didn’t know about DNA, there is a lot of progress still to be made (there always will be). You’re right that an absence of evidence doesn’t mean evidence of absence, but it’s also doesn’t mean evidence of something else.
I understand your comment about the anti-matter, but he did not base his thoughts on faith, but it was a theory that fit all the current evidence, and then anti-matter evidence came and finished the theory! We can never test for God, we can say he did it but we can never ever get that evidence.
I believe the origin of life, the universe and the mind are all massive questions, but we’re still studying them. I take great interest in consciousness, and I think it would be wrong to say “we have no idea”, we have a lot of ideas, but it’s a very new science. I don’t feel the need to invoke God just because we can’t make sense of it (yet) without him.
I just see no evidence for God around me. My conscience does not long for God at all. I test it myself, I ask my mind if there is a tugging towards God. I have prayed and asked for a belief. But I am not going to make a leap of faith because of the bible or others. I have read many long winded arguments for christianity, but they don’t convince me.
I try to be open minded to being wrong, I mean, I was wrong before. Are you open minded too?
LikeLike
February 28, 2009 at 5:27 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AT_bMuFBfs
Youtube has some great clips of Lee Strobel
LikeLike
March 3, 2009 at 7:56 am
Ophalm,
Science will never have all the answers no matter how much time elapses, for several reasons. The most important one, however, is the fact that not every question is a scientific question. Science is only one source of knowledge. Indeed, knowledge of what constitutes science is not itself derived from science. It is derived from philosophy.
Yes, Dirac’s proposal of anti-matter was for the purpose of explaining observed phenomena, but you have to admit it was a leap! It just-so-happened to be correct.
I don’t know why one would think God is not testable. Sure he is, although not directly. We can’t put him in a test-tube, but we can infer things about him from the effects of his acts. For example, the creation of the universe. That is an effect. And when we reason backward to determine what kind of cause is sufficient for the effect, we discover a being who looks very much like the God of theism.
You say you’ve read many arguments for Christianity, but what are those arguments?
Yes, I am open minded to the possibility of being mistaken in my views. After all, I have been mistaken before. But I do not think I am mistaken on the truth of Christianity. Based on my examination of various worldviews, I have found more evidence in favor of Christianity than any other worldview.
Jason
LikeLike
March 3, 2009 at 8:14 pm
“I don’t know why one would think God is not testable. Sure he is, although not directly. We can’t put him in a test-tube, but we can infer things about him from the effects of his acts. For example, the creation of the universe. That is an effect. And when we reason backward to determine what kind of cause is sufficient for the effect, we discover a being who looks very much like the God of theism.”
but I don’t believe that is being testable. We can’t do experiments with God and repeat and get the same results, and then get labs on the other side of the world to come up with similar values. Which is the same argument that is available against, creation, because it cannot be tested or falsified.
The arguments I’ve read are all the standard ones. I feel that at the end of the day they all require faith – as Jesus said. But I can’t give faith to christianity, I don’t see enough evidence, and when I read the bible now from a more neutral viewpoint (as opposed to having a vested interest) I also see God as a very harsh entity, which I don’t want to worship, even if I believe he was real.
(not that I don’t believe in God, just not the OT God)
LikeLike
March 6, 2009 at 4:45 pm
ophalm wrote:
“I feel that at the end of the day they all require faith – as Jesus said. But I can’t give faith to christianity, I don’t see enough evidence, and when I read the bible now from a more neutral viewpoint (as opposed to having a vested interest)…”
oh ophalm, what you’re describing is so Biblical…
“For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away.”
Matthew 13:12
LikeLike
March 6, 2009 at 4:49 pm
This must be why Jesus describes it as a road, and also “seeking” and a lamp unto my feet…
Our walk is like a narrow road just like it describes. You can choose to seek and find and stay on it, or you can go off in a different direction and get further away and lose what you had. Both are actions on are part, both are free will.
I suppose that’s how you see God as harsh? But He wrote to us about holding His arms out all day long…it’s free will ophalm, it’s God given, but it breaks His heart when we walk away just the same.
LikeLike
March 7, 2009 at 2:54 am
In the last two posts you’ve described something like predestination and then free will.. how does that work?
To see how I view God as harsh consider this analogy.
A father is planning to have children. He knows that when he has children, the majority of them won’t do what he tells them to do, so he knows he’ll have to punish them and have them suffer for their entire lives. He knows this is the case, yet he decides to have the children anyway. That is why he is “harsh”.
God says he wants to save us from sin, but he put us here in the first place. Despite knowing most of us would go to hell, he chose to make us anyway. Certainly not a loving action
LikeLike
March 7, 2009 at 12:52 pm
So God is morally culpable for creating good people who choose to do evil? How does that follow? God created us with free will, which is a good thing. The fact that we use that good thing for evil ends is not God’s fault. Besides, God has offered a way of redemption to all men. The problem is that men refuse it, just as they refuse God.
Essentially you are arguing that a good God should not create free creatures He knew would choose hell. But I don’t think this is a reasonable conclusion. As I see it, God only had 5 options when it came to man, and only the fifth option is reasonable:
1. Refrain from creating man to avoid the evil he would commit. (But why should God be prevented from creating us just because the majority would ultimately reject Him? If I knew some of my children would reject me as their father, does that mean I should not have any children at all? Surely I am justified in creating children simply for the joy of being in a relationship with those who will accept me as their father. Likewise, the joy that comes from those who choose to freely love God should not be vetoed by those who choose to reject Him. God calculates the cost-benefit ratio of creating humans whom He knows will choose evil, and “deems the cost of evil to be worth the benefit of loving and enjoying the love of these human beings.” If God is morally culpable for creating creatures He knew would sin, then we are morally culpable as well for creating human beings whom we know are going to sin. We may not know the particulars, but we know it’s inevitable that our children will hurt other people. In the same way that we are justified in creating human beings whom we know will sin, God is justified in creating human beings whom He knew would sin.)
2. Create humans without free will (while this would eliminate evil and the need for hell, it would also eliminate the ability to choose the good, and the ability to be in a love-based relationship with God)
3. Create humans who were both free and could not sin (the problem with this option is that forced freedom is a contradiction in terms)
4. Create man with the freedom to choose good or evil, but ensure that everyone who chooses evil freely accepts God’s salvation (forced freedom is a contradiction in terms)
5. Create a world where sin is possible and redemption for sin is made available. Some will freely choose to accept God’s salvation while others will not.
Genuine love is not achieved by coercion. To bring about the moral good of love requires the presence of free-will. The danger in giving man free-will is that moral agents may choose to use it to defy God and goodness.
The ability to make choices free from coercion is a good thing. Moral freedom, however, entails the possibility that one may choose evil. Raw power cannot create a being with genuine moral freedom who can only choose good. Genuine free-will makes sin an authentic possibility, but not a necessary requirement.
Moral freedom requires that a person be capable of choosing evil. Since moral freedom is a good thing, the possibility of choosing evil is a good thing. While evil is not good, the potential to choose evil is because that potential is part of our freedom from coercion.
Only a bad god would make evil impossible, because such an act strips us of our freedom. A good God would allow the possibility of evil because a good God would want His creatures to possess moral freedom, and exercise genuine love.
Is freedom of will worth all the evil entailed in our world? Freedom is an instrumental good necessary to accomplish the higher good of love, not a final good in itself. And love might indeed be worth it all.
Jason
LikeLike
March 7, 2009 at 2:14 pm
@Jason
“So God is morally culpable for creating good people “
where does it say we were created good? we’re all born into sin.
“God created us with free will”
that’s definitely not a definite theological certainty. The church I went to and all my believes used to be based on a predestined view of life.
I’ll address your points (out of order)
2/ assumption there Romans 8:30
3 & 4/ not an option as you stated
5 & 1/ the problem with your dislike of 1 is not a logical reason not to do it, you just think it would be unreasonable for God to not create man because of what they may be like
“If I knew some of my children would reject me as their father, does that mean I should not have any children at all? Surely I am justified in creating children simply for the joy of being in a relationship with those who will accept me as their father. “
But it’s not just about rejection is it? What about if you knew that most of your children would spend an eternity suffering. And we’re talking about a massive majority here.
I understand the rest of your points, but to me it’s just trying to justify sending countless billions of people to hell just so God can satisfy himself with the few that love him.
The freedom to choose doesn’t make this ok, because you forget the real life cases of billions that don’t actually get presented with the gospel. I know you’ll say something like “God shows himself to everyone, everyone has the option to choose him” but that ignores the real instance of say saudi arabia where millions of children are born and only exposed to islam, and the only exposure they have to christianity is in a hating educating way (much like you’re probably taught about islam in a christian church). that’s like creating a child, never letting them see their father, and then at the end of their life asking why they never worshipped him, and due to that sending them to hell.
“Only a bad god would make evil impossible, because such an act strips us of our freedom. A good God would allow the possibility of evil because a good God would want His creatures to possess moral freedom, and exercise genuine love. “
but what you miss, is that if the people don’t do as he says, he doesn’t correct or help them, he punishes them for eternity. there’s two sides to the coin and you only present the “good” side.
@shewalksaway
it’s the same argument to you. it’s not about having a few children who reject me, because ultimately I know my children might grow up to be loving people and have their own lives and enjoy living
if I knew most of my children wouldn’t just reject me but due to their rejection of me (even if they didn’t understand they were doing it) they would spend their entire lifetime suffering, then I believe it would be truly selfish and narcissistic to create them just for my own joy. But for God it’s even worse because it’s not a lifetime of suffering but an eternity of suffering.
If I met a parent in real life who kept having children even though most of them would spend a life in pain and agony, I would think of them as a terrible cruel person. Try to imagine that situation happening in real life, would you really stand there and think “good on them for trying to bring up some kids so he can love them” even though most of them would end up resenting being created due to the pain and suffering?
Paul himself says that for those who go to hell that it would have been better if they had not been created in the first place. Yet God does it anyway.
“How can anyone not love the One who did so much to save us? “
save us from the punishment he created for us.
LikeLike
March 8, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Jason,
Concerning your comment above (post 12), you really should see this YouTube video:
It debunks the claim that good and evil require a belief in God.
Arthur
LikeLike
March 9, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Arthur,
Your statement was a little ambiguous. If you could please clarify for me, are you meaning to say that the existence of God is not necessary to ground objective moral values and duties (an ontological claim), or are you merely pointing out that one need not believe in God to recognize the existence of objective moral values and duties (an epistemological claim)?
Watching the video may clarify this for me, but unfortunately I am not able to watch the video. My employers blocks access to YouTube, and given all my domestic responsibilities, I am rarely online at home. Thanks!
Jason
LikeLike
March 9, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Jason,
What I posted was the link to Part 29 of the series “Why Do People Laugh at Creationists.”
It begins by noting that pirhanna don’t kill each other, yet they have no belief in God.
He covers Randy Zacharias’s (sp) claim that questioning God on the basis of the existence of evil is nonsense because you must have God to have good and evil.
He compares the argument that morality comes from God to the belief that the sun is jacked into the sky by God.
He claims morals relate to the behavior of individuals within society. Morals create a stable society and cause the society to survive. Wolves don’t attack cubs just because nobody is looking. If you have a stable society, then you have what is called “morals.” “Good” is the term used to describe what’s beneficial for society, “evil” those detrimental to it. Usually evil involves putting personal gain over that of the society.
He says there can be society pressure to help society. Only those animals that help the group will survive. Cooperation is found in many situations, such as whales doing “wave hunting.” So evolution provides a perfectly satisfactory natural explanation for morality.
For example, the desire to protect babies. We have an inborn desire to protect almost anything with large eyes and a large head-to-body ratio, including babies of other species.
He says that those who say claim morality is not relative have lived sheltered, pampered lives. Moral absolutes are a luxury offered by a wealth society. Just imagine two families on an island with only enough food and medical supplies for one. You can see how quickly morality becomes relative.
Morality over time has been relatively plastic, with people no different than you and I being okay with slavery, children as collateral damage, and genocide.
Etc, etc.
-Arthur
LikeLike
March 10, 2009 at 3:43 pm
ophalm,
You stated, “where does it say we were created good? we’re all born into sin.”
I am aware you are an agnostic but this post alone lets me know that you are not truly aware of Biblical theology. Any good Christian apologetic will point this out in any discussion of anthropology or man. Adam was not created into sin. He was born in a “good” state since God gives this refrain at the end of the story of Creation. God makes evil possible, He does not make it actual.
Concerning Free-Will you also stated, “that’s definitely not a definite theological certainty. The church I went to and all my believes used to be based on a predestined view of life.”
This is basically a Calvinistic statement and some Calvinists (e.g. Dr. James White) do profess a belief in free-will. There is Arminian theology as well which Biblically advocates for Free-will as well. Overall it is less deterministic or even fatalistic.
Could this presupposition, of Calvinistic paradigm of theology, be part of the reason why you left your faith earlier in life? If not, can you articulate a reason(s) why? Honest questions, no offense intended. Thanks for the discussion.
LikeLike
March 11, 2009 at 12:42 am
adam may not have been born into sin, but you and me were.
I wasn’t always calvinist, but my loss of faith comes more from a lack of evidence in the bible, and my continued lack of faith comes from viewing the bible from a more neutral viewpoint (which most christians are unable to do as they are so invested)
LikeLike
March 14, 2009 at 9:55 am
I haven’t had much time to keep up with the comments, but I will respond to everyone’s comments now in rapid fire.
LikeLike
March 14, 2009 at 9:56 am
Ophalm,
Yes, you are right. You can’t do repeat experiments on God and get the same results because God is a person, and persons have free will. Scientific experiments won’t work on God for the same reason they won’t work with human persons: free will agents are first-movers that make decisions. As such, we are not subject to the determinism inherent to purely material objects which allows them to be studied by the scientific method, and to get the same results every time.
But why think if something cannot be tested scientifically, it cannot be tested at all? While science is the proper method to test certain things, it is not the only test, and neither is it appropriate for testing all things. If God exists, He is an immaterial being. Philosophy/rationality is the best way to test such things. Think for example how someone who has never seen me might test my existence. They can check the public records for a birth certificate. They can check my credit report, and my history of residences, etc. Given the evidence, they can infer that I am a real person, even though they have never seen me. The same goes for God. We can infer His existence from the effects of His acts (in creation, in conscience, etc.).
I asked you what arguments you have read, and you simply respond that they are the standard ones. That’s not very helpful. Some of the “standard” arguments I have heard are bogus (they are popular, but not sound arguments). Those aren’t the ones I have in mind when I think of the evidence for theism and Christianity.
So you are not an atheist—you simply do not believe in the Christian God. So what kind of God do you believe in?
Jason
LikeLike
March 14, 2009 at 9:56 am
Ophalm,
You and I were not created good, but humankind was created good. Adam’s rebellion affected his progeny. Now all of his children are born with a bent toward rebellion/sin.
Whether the will is free is first and foremost a philosophical question, not a theological one. And I think there is good reason to believe the will is free (and if it wasn’t, then reason doesn’t matter because whatever we believe, we believe because we’ve been determined to believe it, not because of the merits of the view itself, thus undermining the rationality of determinism). But even theologically, I think the Bible teaches freedom of the will. And for what it’s worth, if the church you were a part understood the doctrine of predestination to imply utter determinism, they misunderstand predestination.
As for creating people who would go to hell, I don’t see where you rebutted any of my points. You simply stated your disagreement with them. I still fail to see why a creator is morally responsible for creating free and good beings who use that freedom to reject their own creator. They made that choice, not God. But there are a lot of people (not just a few) who have made the choice to freely love and serve their creator. It is regrettable that so many reject Him, but God should not be prohibited from creating anyone simply because rebels will arise from among them.
One does not need to be presented with the Gospel to recognize the true God (Romans 1-2). And if one will recognize Him based on the minimal revelation provided them in creation and conscience, and submit to Him based on that revelation, God will reveal more of Himself to them. The problem with man is that they reject what they know about God, and construct their own replacement deities instead.
No, God does not just punish people who don’t do as He says. The picture of God we find in the Bible is a God who is constantly seeking to draw sinners to Him in repentance. He strives with them all of their life. But if they consistently choose to reject His every move toward them, then ultimately they will be granted their desire to be away from God for all eternity.
Jason
LikeLike
March 14, 2009 at 9:58 am
Arthur,
What does the fact that piranhas don’t kill each other have anything to do with whether morality is objective or relative, and grounded in God?
I don’t see where this guy said anything to undermine the argument. He just reinforces my point. If morals are relative as he asserts, then there is no such thing as objective good or evil. If there is no such thing as objective evil (what we call evil is just a name we apply to personal/social dislikes), then one cannot object to the existence of God based on the fact that there is so much evil in the world. Doing so is like saying God cannot exist because I don’t like broccoli. That makes no sense. The argument only makes sense if evil is objective, and evil can only be objective if there is an objective good from which it departs. And the only way to properly ground objective moral values/duties is in a personal God. See my blog post at https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/can-morality-be-grounded-outside-of-god/ for supporting argumentation.
I don’t have the space to go into an in-depth examination of moral relativism and why it cannot be true, but maybe I’ll do so in the future. Let me just say that the empirical basis for the position is vastly exaggerated, and the rationality of the position is critically flawed.
As for evolution explaining morality, it cannot fully explain it. Again, this requires a separate post, but let me just say this for now: social evolution may be able to explain why we behave in certain ways and think in moral categories (epistemological), but it cannot explain why anyone ought to be moral (ontological grounding for moral values/duties). An evolutionary account of morality is ultimately relative, and thus once again, there is no basis for arguing against God on the basis of evil, because evil does not exist as such. It is a social fiction, just like the good.
Are you an advocate of moral relativism yourself? If so, how can you possibly reconcile this with your Christian faith? On a practical level alone, moral relativism undermines the Gospel. If there are no objective moral values/duties, and if God is not the grounding for moral values/duties, then there can be no such thing as sin against God. If God exists and He has a moral nature, and we are created in His image, then we all share the same moral nature, and are all subject to the same moral values/duties.
Jason
LikeLike