An Interview with Ray Comfort and a Special Edition of Dr. Brown Answers Your Questions

[Download MP3]

In the first hour, Dr. Brown interviews popular evangelist, teacher, and debater Ray Comfort and in the second hour takes your questions on biblical, theological, moral, cultural, practical, or apologetic questions.

 

Hour 1:

 

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: We need to get back to the truth of the Gospel and The Fundamentals. A Holy God, we have sinned against Him. There is mercy alone at the cross. Back to the basics!

 


Hour 2:

 

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Put your hope in the Living God. He is faithful to save, to deliver, and to keep. He will finish what He starts!

 

SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!

“Who is the Real Kosher Jesus?” Debate  (2 DVD-Set)
With Dr. Brown and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Hosted by Sid Roth 
For A Gift of Any Size,  Postage Paid!
 Call 1-800-278-9978 to order!
Other Resources:

www.180movie.com

www.Livingwaters.com

You’ve Got Questions, We’ve Got Answers!

What do you tell pot-smoking teenagers who say that the Bible doesn’t speak against marijuana?  Is it inappropriate for a Christian to have images (pictures or statues) of Christ in their homes? Is it important for local churches to be multi-ethnic? What is my view on interracial marriage?

You’ve Got Questions, We’ve Got Answers!

Should a Christian minister perform a marriage ceremony for a non-believing couple? Do I have an opinion on the new movie The Hunger Games? Should Christians financially support Rabbi Eckstein’s International Fellowship of Christians and Jews?

Engaging Culture, Congress, and the Media w/Pat Mahoney [MP3 CD]:  How does the gospel intersect with culture? What is the church’s role in society? How can we take the gospel into the streets and into our communities? How can we influence Congress and the media? Pat Mahoney, who has been on the front lines of cultural engagement for more than twenty-five years, will provoke you to godly action and inspire you to rise up and change your world in the life and power of the Spirit.

A Time For Holy Fire by Dr. Brown: Are you fed up with Christianity as you know it? Does your heart long for something more? Have you had it with the same old religious cycle? Then this book is for you. Revival is our only hope—yet there is hope for revival!

59 Comments
  1. We’ve got to move this Documentary around the country and around the world!! Send it to everyone you know–both sides of the abortion debate. It doesn’t sound right calling it a “debate.”

    So, let’s move this documentary around the world!!

    http://180movie.com/

  2. Good deal, Ken! I’ve sent it to family and friends and from there to church members where it’ll move pretty quickly!!

    I think if 2.1 Billion who profess Christ will stand up and claim Him, together we could do great things.

  3. The ability to cause the mind to be patient, I think, keeps the mind in good working condition.  Abraham, was told to leave his home, and he needed patience to believe God’s promises.  The brain is amazing.  It can deceive and it can be used for good.  I am reluctant to believe the little plans that I make.  The Word, the Spirit, and brothers and sisters.  It’s hard to be strong in one’s belief in the world today.  We learn a lot and there are all kinds of information out there.  Patience.  We need to learn patience.  And I need God to be patient with me.  

  4. I really enjoyed the program.I have followed Ray Comfort’s ministry for several years now and I know he has a real passion to reach the lost and to see true coversion.
    He has a lot of material that helps you to reach out to the lost.His gospel tracts are good and his material on how to reach out to the lost is very good.

  5. Anyone familiar with Comfort’s manipulative tactics shouldn’t be surprised that he got the answers he wanted. I have asked many people face to face who claim to be pro-life if they believe that forcing parenthood on people who don’t want it or are not ready for it is the moral thing to do, yes or no. They never fail to answer that forced parenthood is immoral. So anything Comfort can do I can do better. The people I talk to don’t change their minds after they’ve had time to reconsider the way the people Comfort interviewed did.

    Ray Comfort is best known for his ridiculous assertion that bananas must have been designed by a designer which is his evidence for Intelligent Design and his personal refutation of evolution by natural selection not to mention a supposed nightmare for atheists. Comfort had a video in which he went to great lengths to show that only God could have designed something as wonderful as a banana as it fits so perfectly in the human hand. No one bothered to tell Ray that when humans discovered bananas they were short, inedible and filled with hard seeds. What we now call a banana is the result of artificial selection something very close to natural selection. So Comfort just shoots himself in the foot and proves evolution is a fact while doing so. Again.

  6. It’s still a banana (not evolution- and there was a “designer” botanist involved in breeding that delicious banana you see today).

    If you were to find fossils of the original, inedible banana, and one I might buy at the store today- would that be proof of evolution?

    There is nothing wrong at all with leading questions to get people to recognize the fallicy of their beliefs or opinions. Lawyers rightfully may use this tactic to help bring about justice proving guilt or innocence.

    Thanks for your opinions though Boris.

  7. BTW, Ray Comfort is best know for his tireless procamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not for some discussion on bananas. Such discussions necessarily flow out of debates with darwinistic atheist philophers, most particularly Richard Dawkins in this case.

  8. I don’t live in fear at all, because though judgement for sin is real, the price has been paid in full.

    It is false to claim that tactics of persuasion, such as those used by Comfort, are void of appeals to logic. In fact, there is a very logical progression by which those who have not scrutinized their position carefully enough are led to rethink based on new information. In so doing, some will come rightly to new conclusions.

    Some of those conclusions may or should be based on the Love of God as presented within the Gospel- and yes fear of judgement is integral but not the ultimate goal.

    Now someone may disagree with the new information presented (or re-presented), but that is a different matter altogether.

    Were the banana observations too “off topic” for you? Stated more succinctly- observed changes within species are “caused” by “design” when breeding is carried out to a desired purpose. Evolutionary only in the aspect that change took place- but certainly not without mindful intent.

  9. Boris,

    Your main appeal is always that your perceived “majority” or your perceived “experts” or your perceived “intelligent ones” will laugh at us. Have you noticed us shaking in our boots yet? You really need to be set free from your homosapien-a-phobia. Your god “norm” will always be afraid to stand for what is right in the face of the perceived majority’s opinion. His followers will always do the same.

    Just because you fear man and his opinions, doesn’t mean that we can be intimidated and brainwashed as easily as you have been. We revere YHWH, our creator and redeemer.

    The real coward fears the ridicule of mere man or maybe torture and/or death. The truly courageous cares not what man can do to him.

    Matthew 10
    28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

    Hebrews 13
    6 So that we may boldly say, YHWH is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.

    2 Timothy 1
    7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
    8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
    9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
    10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

    Shalom

  10. Matt B

    I don’t live in fear at all, because though judgement for sin is real, the price has been paid in full.

    Response: Judgment for sin is religious dogma and an insane superstition and all of your religious dogma and superstitions have been proved to be false. All Christian claims have been debunked.

    It is false to claim that tactics of persuasion, such as those used by Comfort, are void of appeals to logic. In fact, there is a very logical progression by which those who have not scrutinized their position carefully enough are led to rethink based on new information. In so doing, some will come rightly to new conclusions.

    Response: People who believe in an afterlife are not applying logic to that belief. That belief is a baseless superstition.

    Some of those conclusions may or should be based on the Love of God as presented within the Gospel- and yes fear of judgement is integral but not the ultimate goal.
    Now someone may disagree with the new information presented (or re-presented), but that is a different matter altogether.

    Response: What information? All Christian claims are false and therefore without evidence.

    Were the banana observations too “off topic” for you? Stated more succinctly- observed changes within species are “caused” by “design” when breeding is carried out to a desired purpose. Evolutionary only in the aspect that change took place- but certainly not without mindful intent.

    Response: It’s so hilarious that Comfort denies evolution while he tries to scare people out of their minds with the same religious delusions he’s suffering from. No one of any sense pays any attention to you evolution deniers and they know if you’re going to lie about something as obvious as evolution you’ll lie about anything.

    Bo

    Just because you fear man and his opinions, doesn’t mean that we can be intimidated and brainwashed as easily as you have been.

    Response: Atheists represent about 15 or 20 percent of the U.S. population. So who are you accusing of being afraid to hold a minority opinion? You believe in angels, demons, Satan, seraphs, an afterlife, heaven, hell, that dinosaurs and people lived on the earth at the same time, that dead people came back to life, unburied themselves and walked into Jerusalem and a whole lot of other things for which there exists not even the tiniest shred of evidence and you’re calling someone else brainwashed! ROFL! They don’t come any more indoctrinated or brainwashed than you buddy.

    We revere YHWH, our creator and redeemer.

    Response: Because OTHER PEOPLE told you to. ROFL! You’re hilarious!

    The real coward fears the ridicule of mere man or maybe torture and/or death. The truly courageous cares not what man can do to him.

    Response: If I were afraid of ridicule or insults, taunting or constant threats of violence, what would I be doing on a Christian blog? All you people do is ridicule anyone who disagrees with you.

  11. Boris, surely you have a better response to my challenge about the banana “evolving” than that? Perhaps you don’t.

    Back on topic, if you reject the message, it does not invalidate the message. So far all you have offered in this discussion is ad hominem attack, rather than any substance.

    Lives delivered from desctructive power of sin, from brokenness, from addictions that strangle their lives… these are the testimonies of the power of Christ, the victory he won on the cross.

    That message will not be quenched.

  12. Boris, you will notice some of your posts (at least one, like #11, above), being pulled here, since you refuse to abide by the guidelines of no personal attacks allowed. That also means, unfortunately, that your posts will have to be moderated from here on, which means you will not see them posted immediately until someone on our team reviews them. It’s a shame that you can’t refrain from the personal vitriol, since the conversation is otherwise welcome here.

  13. Lives delivered from desctructive power of sin, from brokenness, from addictions that strangle their lives… these are the testimonies of the power of Islam, Hindism and every other religion as well. People of all religions make the exact same claims. Why should I accept “evidence” from you that your deity is real when you do not accept the exact same “evidence” given by adherents of other religions as evidence that their deity is real? So much for you “message.”

  14. Boris,

    I won’t take the time to address your glittering generalities and your enthymeme of “forced parenthood,” but I will address one of the many factual inaccuracies that you mentioned. You stated atheists represent 15-20% of the US population. This is false. You are offering statistics without context. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (a highly reputable public research organization) conducted a 2009 survey of 35,0000 Americans, and they put the number of Americans who are atheists at 5%. You can read the report here:

    http://www.pewforum.org/Not-All-Nonbelievers-Call-Themselves-Atheists.aspx

  15. Boris,

    With all of your rolling and laughing, I am pretty sure that you are on the cutting edge of your religion. It will probably be called the Unholy Rollers. “ROFL” is nothing but ridicule. It is not debating or refuting the many things that have been brought up. You really need to get up to speed on actually proving your points and try some honest attempts at proving ours wrong. A little less time rolling, ranting and raving and a little more time listening and learning wouldn’t hurt you a bit.

    Shalom

  16. Dustin Turner
    The report you cited says that about 15 percent of Americans are not religious, but if only 5 percent are atheists then that strengthens my case which is that it is the Christians who need strength in numbers to maintain a belief system and certainly not me and my fellow atheists. I’m not the one following the crowd as the other blogger implied. Also most people who are not religious don’t care enough about the God question enough to even classify themselves as atheists or agnostics. What I find so incredibly funny about all this however, is that on the one hand we have Christians such as you did and Ray Comfort does claiming atheists represent a tiny insignificant portion of our society. Then on the other hand the same people including Ray complain that atheists have taken over the academic community, the entertainment industry, science, the courts and most of the rest of government, including of course the public schools where all the teachers are supposedly atheists and indoctrinate the students with atheism, otherwise known as science. On the one hand Christians claim to be this huge majority in our nation and the SAME people complain that they are being persecuted in our nation! Somehow this insignificant minority of 5 percent is persecuting this majority that claims to be 85 percent of the population. Perhaps you fail to see the humor in these ludicrous and contradictory but often repeated claims.

  17. Boris,

    1. The question you posed about “forcing parenthood” is a false dichotomy. You present and either or choice when there is a third alternative, that of adoption, so the force of your argument fails.

    2. At the risk of upsetting Dr. Brown by going off topic, can you show me your proofs for the non-existence of God as an “insane superstition”? After reading many atheist’s works it seems the two strongest arguments are Dysteleology and the problem of evil. However neither of these really amount to much.

    3. Is anything morally wrong anywhere for all people at all times (e.g. child abuse,child molestation, bigotry,racism)?

    4. Do you agree with Nietzsche when he said, If you could prove the Christian God to me, I would believe in him all the less?

  18. I have heard a few reports of ‘superstars’ you wouldn’t consider giving others the time of day sometimes being quite magnanimous, like Mick Jagger and Howard Stern; the explanation being, “This is the ony heaven they will ever know; so GOD is giving them favor on earth.” I wouldn’t chisel this in stone, but it appears somewhat correct; even atheists are free to choose their own behavior while living.

    The problem here is that if there is no GOD, then there is no absolute Justice; and if judgment has no real meaning concerning character, then no civil law is possible except as grudging consent to keep some semblance of peace. If corruption is allowed to run rampant because absolute power corrupts absolutely, we are only a shadow away from the middle chapters of Revelation. I will fight against this with all my being, no matter how worthy my opponent may appear.

    In Him, Ron M.

  19. From what I can observe through observation, (Rom 1:20)is, that when a man will not walk in the light he has been given, he will fall asleep spiritually, and when that happens, he may say anything, and it doesn’t have to make any sense.

    Yet there have been times when I have seemed to be so close to heaven that my rest is so sweet and God seems to be downloading information into my spirit, that I can not help but speak a few of those things quietly as I begin to fall asleep.

  20. Poets and artists have for centuries spoken of their ‘muses’, including, I think, Bob Dylan as to his first ‘inspirations’; so Discerning Wisdom as to the Source is vital. Does GOD still speak Wisdom to men? Can we be “more undignified than this” and still function “decently and in order”?

    “Religion”, as defined by, say, “I’ll Have Another Drink” Conferences (without the tendonitis), is a tool of Satan in squelching and squashing the Spirit of GOD; just as, for centuries, this ‘stuffiness’ of religion tended to see ANYTHING approaching exhuberance as from the devil. If this is finally starting to be addressed, Wisdom has hardly been touched; intelligence has nearly always been disqualified by default in religious circles, unless the ‘patron’ first kisses the feet of the ‘Pastor’. Thus secular humanism has become the only place where those who have fresh Visions are welcome. It is nearly too late to change this; but GOD has a habit of stepping in where everything appears hopeless; this is my Prayer for Help.

    In Him, Ron M.

  21. S. Johnson

    The question you posed about “forcing parenthood” is a false dichotomy. You present and either or choice when there is a third alternative, that of adoption, so the force of your argument fails.

    Response: I wasn’t making an argument to be debated here. I was demonstrating that if one uses the same tactics Ray Comfort does, and presenting people with false dichotomies is certainly one of them you can usually get whatever results you’re trying to. I’m not questioning Comfort’s motives. I’m only commenting on the techniques he uses in his attempts to get the results he wants.

    2. At the risk of upsetting Dr. Brown by going off topic, can you show me your proofs for the non-existence of God as an “insane superstition”? After reading many atheist’s works it seems the two strongest arguments are Dysteleology and the problem of evil. However neither of these really amount to much.

    Response: I didn’t say belief in God was an insane superstition. I was talking about the supposed judgment for “sin” upon death. It turns out that the only “sin” one is punished for is mistakenly adopting the wrong religion or not adopting any religion at all. What more evidence does a person need that your religion is man-made?

    3. Is anything morally wrong anywhere for all people at all times (e.g. child abuse, child molestation, bigotry, racism)?

    Response: Morality is based on choices and choices are rooted in values. The most basic choice is between life and death so the ultimate value is life. Therefore anything that harms or destroys human life would be bad or morally wrong and that which protects or enhances life is good. Morality based on the Bible has never curbed child abuse, child molestation, bigotry and racism and in fact Christians have a very poor record when it comes to these issues.

    4. Do you agree with Nietzsche when he said, If you could prove the Christian God to me, I would believe in him all the less?

    Response: Suppose Nietzsche had said, “If you could prove the Muslim God to me, I would believe in him all the less?” Would you agree with that? When you understand why you reject the Gods of all other religions perhaps you’ll be able to understand why people reject yours. Or perhaps not.

    ron david metcalf

    The problem here is that if there is no GOD, then there is no absolute Justice; and if judgment has no real meaning concerning character, then no civil law is possible except as grudging consent to keep some semblance of peace.

    Response: What kind of absolute justice is there in judging people on whether or not they adopted a particular religion? How does that make civil law possible may I ask? Where’s the connection?

    Thus secular humanism has become the only place where those who have fresh Visions are welcome.

    Response: This is true but absolutists and absolutism are not welcome among free-thinking secular humanists. Once you stop thinking in those terms you won’t have to do anything else. You’ll just wake up one day and find you are one of us. It’s that simple.

  22. Boris,
    at least we’re coming closer to defining the issues; so our obvious communication problem may eventually be resolved; though complicated.
    “I was talking about the supposed judgment for “sin” upon death.”
    Most agnostics blame GOD for Death; that all this ‘beauty’ must be laid to waste, and thus they carry a chip on their shoulder their entire life about “all things must pass”. But raging against the inevitable is “absurd”.
    Atheists have a different problem; believing there is no GOD (and, most of the time, no angels or demons) there is Nothing to blame; ‘nature’ just is; the ‘universe’ just is; so the vacuum of reasoning must somehow be championed in the extreme shortness of individual existence. This is unsustainable for me; why I can’t join your ‘relative theory of abstract morality’ (Brave New World reasoning). Not relying on Myself to conquer the universe (see above as ‘absurd’) I MUST turn to Something ‘outside myself’ for Absolute Rules; you have chosen ‘Science’; I have chosen ‘GOD’.
    Now Science can be bent to your own whims, as Isaiah talks about how a craftsman makes an idol. You can’t bend or break GOD; you must Submit. This is most difficult for an ‘outlaw’, which I once was. I am trying to show you that being an ‘inlaw’ is not nearly unpleasant as you imagine; in fact, it will give you Peace that you cannot know now. But ‘keep on truckin’;’ eventually you might find Home.
    In Him, Ron M.

  23. addendum:
    as far as poetry for poetry’s sake, I personally prefer Rob’t Frost over T.S. Eliot; but Thomas Stearns found something in Jung’s symbolism that eluded the New England common-sense bard: a Community he was searching for in the Wasteland. I couldn’t find that in Catholicism on my own personal journey (though my wife grew up Catholic); yet another favorite, E. E. Cummings, appears tragic in that he looked to Women for his salvation, knowing full well that they were as fallen as himself.
    The classic ‘comedy’ of ‘fellowship’ still eludes us here in the Smoky Mtns.; but, like Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, we boldly declare that the goal will be found!
    In Him, Ron M.

  24. Boris:

    I look forward to reponding to all of your replies, but for today I will start with just the fourth as I have limited time.

    You said:Suppose Nietzsche had said, “If you could prove the Muslim God to me, I would believe in him all the less?” Would you agree with that? When you understand why you reject the Gods of all other religions perhaps you’ll be able to understand why people reject yours. Or perhaps not.

    Response: If you could show that Jesus’ claims were false, that the eyewitnesses were in error, that His body lies in a tomb intact, that the apostles died for what they knew was a lie that they had themselves made up, and that Mohammad got it right, yes I would then believe in Isalm. My believes are not arbitrary but based on rational proofs. I do not reject other world views Capriciously, but after studying them find them wanting of proofs and often contradictory to reality.

    My original question still stands for you, do you agree with Nietzsche’ statement as it stands, not as you recast it. It is a fairly straight forward question that you sidedstepped with a diverting response.

  25. Boris,

    I looks like you are also short on time and have not had time to reply to my response to you, but I wanted to continue addressing your objections, so today I will focus on my third question and your response.

    My Question: 3. Is anything morally wrong anywhere for all people at all times (e.g. child abuse, child molestation, bigotry, racism)?

    You said: “Therefore anything that harms or destroys human life would be bad or morally wrong and that which protects or enhances life is good.”
    It appears from your answer that you have an absolute standard of morality, as you say that anything that destroys human life would be bad or MORRALLY WRONG. But what is this statement based upon? Is it just your opinion or is it something that all men should accept as an absolute standard? If it is an absolute standard then what is it based upon. Moral standards are prescriptive and do not follow from descriptive natural laws. Moral standards tell us what we ought to do not what we actually do. Objective moral standards need a ground. Every prescription needs a prescriber.

    If on the other hand your gauge of morality is just your opinion then why should anyone live by it? One might respond that your rules for protecting life should only apply to MY LIFE and the LIVES OF THOSE I CARE ABOUT, but why should I care about what happens to you? Slavery might make MY LIFE better; by having someone else do hard labor that I would otherwise have to do, my lifespan might be increased. I can then have more children and further my own genetic survival. And to keep those slaves in line, one might have to make examples of a few and even kill a few. And if your rules for not harming life are just your opinion then none of these things is TRULY wrong. It all comes down to personal choice and taste on the same level as saying some don’t like lima beans and some do. There are no moral absolutes, its just opinion.

    The second part of your statement as to the impact of the Bible would be difficult for you to defend. You said “Morality based on the Bible has never curbed child abuse, child molestation, bigotry and racism and in fact Christians have a very poor record when it comes to these issues.”
    My first response would be, if you don’t believe in moral absolutes, then so what–none of these things is a REAL MORAL problem anyway. They are just things you may not personally like.

    But assuming your point is that while you do not take the Bible as a moral ground, Christians are supposed to and don’t then your statement still remains indefensible.
    Yes it is true that many professing Christians have committed vile acts that ARE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO SCRIPTURAL TEACHING,but many whose actions are in keeping with Scriptural principles have made great moral contributions. Take a trip to India sometime and see who has been taking care of the dalits (untouchables), look at the historical basis of many of the great universities, look at how Biblical principles (when properly applied ) were used against slavery and racism. This list could be vastly multiplied. Further, in order to make a solid case for your statement you would have to show that without the Bible the world would not have been worse than it is, and that is not logically possible.

    Last, let me ask you a question about the response you made to Ron. You said: “This is true but absolutists and absolutism are not welcome among free-thinking secular humanists. Once you stop thinking in those terms you won’t have to do anything else. You’ll just wake up one day and find you are one of us. It’s that simple.”

    My Question to you: Are you saying that as a “free-thinking secular humanist” that it is your position that it is absolutely true that people should not think in absolutes?

  26. S. Johnson
    I looks like you are also short on time and have not had time to reply to my response to you, but I wanted to continue addressing your objections, so today I will focus on my third question and your response.

    Response: I have the time but not the patience. I posted a comment about Ray Comfort’s abortion video and the tactics he uses to get the results he wants. As usual the conversation has strayed from the topic. I’m not interested in defending my views on morality or in anything Nietzsche said. I’ve never read anything he wrote. I am familiar with Ray Comfort and his video. That’s the topic of the thread.

  27. So, Boris, I pointed out the problem with your idea that bananas somehow prove natural selection and evolution, and incredibly that was one of your problems with Ray Comfort (from your first post).

    See my posts about banana-evolution fallacy in #9 and #11. Any response?

  28. Boris,

    I have a certain admiration for Nietzche, he was willing to look into the Abyss despite the consequences and misery it seemed to bring him. Further, He was one of the few atheist philosophers who had the courage to take his position to its logical conclusion; when the Proclamation of the death of the myth of God took root, that realization would make the 20th century the bloodiest of all, as when God dies all objective moral values die with Him. And he was exactly right! Although in reading his works one finds very little in the way of RATIONAL arguments that support his atheism.

    If you want a good read from someone that shared your point of view on morals, try the REVENGE OF CONSCIENCE, by J. Budziszewski. He is a Yale trained PhD. who wrote his desertation on why morals are just something we make up and then taught this at the college level. His arguments were robust enough to get by Yale academics, yet this book discusses his return from Nihilism.

    My question to you about Nietzsche’s statement was meant to help me understand you. Habermas (Theologian/professor) points that there are 3 species of doubt. 1. Intellectual doubt–doubt that stems from honest intellectual difficulties with belief in God and apparent conflicts with science. 2. Emotional doubt–doubt that stems from emotional injury by the church. Either the church treated someone unkindly or acted with such hypocracy that the person affected rejects the church out of anger. 3. Volitional doubt–doubt that stems from ultimate libertarian ideology, such that no other being is going to rule over them. Often those with species 2 or 3, masquerade as being of species 1.

    It is fairly useless to present logical arguments to those whose doubt is based in species 2 or 3, for as Philosopher William James said, the mind will never accept what the heart does not want. On the other hand one with honest intellectual doubts is willing to weigh the evidence.

  29. My doubt and skepticism are based on the fact that there is no evidence that any God exists. Your desperation to prove otherwise is hilarious.

  30. Can Science save? Of course not!
    Boris does not seem to be part of “Generation X”, because he has a fairly good grasp of citing history; but there are concerns toward the recent tendency to getting “passing marks” in math and English (least-common-denominator) at the expense of the Arts and especially Philosophy that was somewhat prevalent in the sixties and seventies, but began vanishing in the eighties and nineties. So a somewhat ‘holistic’ approach was traded for ‘getting ’em out the door’ for the mundane existence of the 99% (borrowing the phrase) of Garbage at the Speed of Light in Technology (e.g. television and internet; or look at the movies pumped out over the last decade); extremely high-priced sports and entertainment ‘idols’, and the like. Books? Dime-a-dozen on the stands; turn ’em all into coffee cafes! So the Wonder I grew up with (even the ‘common’ Burton and Taylor had a classic slant) no longer seems to be there in ‘pop culture’; and this is very dangerous. Education can be meaured in many ways; we are failing partly because we have lost Purpose. Dumbing-down the new generation seems to be high on certain people’s lists; look for charter vouchers to be fought against with everything these so-called ‘public educators’ have at their disposal.
    In Him, Ron M.

  31. Boris,

    Really, “there is no evidence that any God exists”! Really! There is only the Cosmological argument, Moral Argument, Teleological argument, Design Argument, and Argument from existential need. When multiple lines of evidence point to the same conclusion, the probability of that conclusion being true is extremely high. What would be “hilarious” would be to see you take each argument in turn and show why they are not valid. Or perhaps you can just answer the simple fundamental question–where did information come from?

    It is clear from your statements that you are not to be taken seriously. You make Ridiculous statements that you cannot defend, some of which are even self defeating (e.g. the belief that it is absolutely true that there are not absolutes). It is pointless to have a rational discussion with someone who clearly has a heart problem, not a head problem.

  32. S. Johnson,
    For centuries theologians have been attempting to come up with rational proofs of God’s existence and without exception all of their efforts have failed miserably. Not only do these arguments ultimately fail, most of them are actually premised on logical fallacies. The argument known as the ontological argument suffers from circularity, the cosmological argument relies on special pleading, and the argument from design is just a disguised argument from ignorance. The moral argument for God’s existence has been plagued for centuries by the Euthyphro rebuttal. The more recently formed theistic arguments rely on the fallacy of the false dilemma. C.S. Lewis and Ray Comfort are famous for presenting false dichotomies to support their arguments. If Christianity were a valid and coherent belief system that flowed from a consistent set of principles, theistic arguments would not be so fatally flawed and easy to refute. On the other hand, if Christian beliefs came first and then reasons justifying it were invented later we should expect the arguments to support these beliefs to be as deeply flawed as they really are.

    I suppose I should respond to your post since Ray Comfort uses the arguments you mentioned. First though, I said there was no evidence that God exists and you countered with arguments. Arguments are NOT evidence. They are a good indication however that the person making the arguments has no evidence otherwise they would present it rather than arguments and fatally flawed arguments at that. I gave a summary of the objections to the Cosmological Argument in post #23 on “The “Reason Rally” in DC; Thoughts on the Trayvon Martin Killing; and Gay-Bashing Is Out But Christian Bashing Is In” thread on this blog. In post #50 on that thread I demonstrated some of the fatal flaws in the Moral Argument but there are others such as the Euthyphro dilemma. Like the First Cause Argument the flaw in the Design Argument is special pleading. If God doesn’t need an explanation for His existence neither then why should Nature? The Design Argument is also based on backward reasoning when applied to things such as the complexity of the cell. The fallacy is citing an example of modern life, the result of 4 billion years of cellular evolution, and the exclaiming such a complex structure could not just randomly pop into existence. No kidding.
    The creationists claim that chance and law working in tandem cannot generate information. The definition of information as it is used by William Dembski is equivalent to negative entropy. Entropy is the quantitative measure of disorder in physics, not a conserved quantity like energy. Entropy of an open system can either increase or decrease.

    I didn’t say whether or not I believed there are absolutes. I was talking with Ron who is a religious absolutist, which is the kind of absolutism humanists reject.

    It’s ironic for you to on the one hand to claim to want to have a rational discussion with me and then on the other claim I have a “heart” (read: emotional) problem. Clearly that is an appeal to emotions rather than to rationality. I have studied religion carefully and so I can recognize the fatal flaws in your theistic arguments as well as the tactics that Christianity uses to command obedience and discourage doubt. These are the real reasons I do not believe there is a God.

  33. THE FOLLOWING IS LONG; I WILL DIVIDE IT IN TWO.
    IT GIVES A GOOD OVERVIEW OF THE CHRISTIAN V ATHEIST CONCEPT OF “GOOD” WE HAVE BEEN DEBATING FOR AWHILE. (Googled except for intro):

    I know the answer to this; but it will take a bit of time to formulate properly; anyone else want to tackle it in the meantime? (my answer starts with a different premise; as it is not high on my priority list, I may take a few weeks to answer).
    In Him, Ron M.

    the Euthyphro dilemma asks something along the lines of: ‘Is the good good because God approves it, or does God approve it because it’s good?’
    Now, the theist doesn’t want to say that the Good is good simply because God happens to approve of it, since this makes morality arbitrary (call this Horn A). Nor does he want to say that God approves the Good because it is, in fact, good, since this seems to entail the existence of standards of goodness outside of God (call this Horn B).
    So, the theist tries to split the horns of the dilemma by saying that God is necessarily good, and that the source and standard of the Good is God’s very nature. On the one hand, this avoids Horn B, since goodness, rather than existing outside of God, is part of God’s very nature (and in fact depends upon him for its existence). And, on the other hand, it avoids Horn A, since God’s will isn’t arbitrary but, rather, operates according to a definite moral standard (i.e. God’s necessarily good nature).
    But it seems that the atheist can now reformulate the dilemma to ask: ‘Is God’s nature good because of the way God happens to be, or is it good because it matches up to some external standard of goodness?’
    The Euthyphro contains various issues of importance to the philosophy of religion, but the work is best known for its challenge to the view that morality rests on belief in God. Socrates asks: Are actions right because God says they are right, or does God say actions are right because they are right? If actions are right because of Gods command, then the discomforting conclusion is that anything god commands is right, even if the view removes any significance from the claim that God issues good commands. For if the good is whatever God commands, then to say God commands rightly is simply to say to say that he commands as he commands, a statement that is uninformative.
    The question is: 1) Is good, “good” because God said its good? or 2) Does God say that good is “good” because it is good?
    If you select number 2, then “good” is a standard independent of God. But isn’t God the source of all things?
    This philosophical dilemma derives its name from a Platonic dialogue which bears the same name as its title. Socrates, in Plato’s dialogue, asks Euthyphro: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” Within the context of theism in general, the question takes the following form: “Is what is commanded by God morally good because it is essentially morally good? Or is it morally good because God has commanded it?”
    Euthyprho’s Dilemma assumes that God imposes Laws upon morally neutral beings that do not bear His image. So again, the “dilemma” is not one that applies in any way to the Christian faith. Christianity asserts that God is love.
    The problem [with the moral argument] is twofold. Firstly, we can derive morals without this argument. Secondly, this argument does not in fact give us a solid foundation for morals. Yahweh may be unchanging, but even if he existed, this would not be enough.
    But what is good? How do we know that the character traits of Yahweh are in fact good? Simply because they are Yahweh’s traits? Because Yahweh simply is good? It doesn’t really answer the question.
    This is known as the Euthyphro dilemma, and there is no way around it because it is an exhaustive divide – if something is good and X shows it to be good, then it is either good with or without X, or it is good because of X. We cannot escape it by saying that Yahweh’s ‘character’ rather than his words make it good. We cannot escape it by saying that Yahweh is perfect, because we then have to ask, ‘Perfect in regards to what?’, and if the answer is ‘Perfect in regards to everything, including morals’ then we are back at square one
    Normally, the problem with accepting the horn is that there is a presumption that the commands in question from God are arbitrary (i.e. God could have commanded that we ought to lie). But that’s just false. The theist wants to say that God is essentially loving, honest etc., and therefore, in all worlds at which God exists, his commands are going to be consistent with his nature. And therefore, in all worlds, he will disapprove of lying.
    http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.com/2012/05/rebuttal-to-malin-freeborn-on-moral.html (above, beginning with “The problem…”)
    If something is right because God commands it, then it follows that something would be just as right if God commanded otherwise. This, in effect, completely trivializes all the commands of God as completely arbitrary, and furthermore it eliminates the logical validity of God being Good, because if something is Good because God commands it, then God is Good because God commands it, a tautological statement with no real force behind it. The rebuttal that God would chose something to be right because of His infinite wisdom fits in line more with the next argument. The second option, that God commands something because it is right and that is obvious to Him in His infinite wisdom, avoids the arbitrariness of the previous option, but introduces a new problem which takes us back to the beginning: if God commands something because it is right, then in accepting that argument you have abandoned a theological concept of right and wrong, insofar that it would be right whether or not God commands it.
    Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274) is sometimes represented as answering the Euthyphro Dilemma by claiming that God recognizes, rather than commands, what kinds of traits will be good. More accurately, though, Aquinas represents the dilemma as a false dichotomy, and argues that God simply defines goodness by His nature. That answer ignores the arbitrariness objection of both Socrates and of Christ in John 5, which exposes the inability of a unitarian testimony to credibly define what is good. Aquinas’s extreme commitment to Greek philosophy had him looking for an answer from the perspective of Aristotle and Plotinus more so than from the Bible.
    In his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas took up the question: “Whether God is the supreme good?” and wrote:
    I [Thomas Aquinas] answer that, God is the supreme good simply… The supreme good does not add to good any absolute thing, but only a relation. Now a relation of God to creatures, is not a reality in God, but in the creature; for it is in God in our idea only: … Thus it is not necessary that there should be composition in the supreme good…
    And to the question, “Whether to be essentially good belongs to God alone?” Aquinas wrote:
    Now the essences of simple things are undivided both actually and potentially, but the essences of compounds are undivided only actually; and therefore everything must be one essentially, but not good essentially…”
    And to the question, “Whether all things are good by the divine goodness?” Aquinas wrote:
    I answer that… Plato held the existence of separate ideas of all things, and that individuals were denominated by them as participating in the separate ideas; for instance, that Socrates is called man according to the separate idea of man. Now just as he laid down separate ideas of man and horse which he called absolute man and absolute horse, so likewise he laid down separate ideas of “being” and of “one,” and these he called absolute being and absolute oneness; and by participation of these, everything was called “being” or “one”; and what was thus absolute being and absolute one, he said was the supreme good. And because good is convertible with being, as one is also; he called God the absolute good, from whom all things are called good by way of participation. …as Aristotle argues in many ways—still, it is absolutely true that there is first something which is essentially being and essentially good, which we call God…

  34. Part 2:
    In more recent times, Plato’s approach has been used as an assault on the coherence of Christianity. 20th century British philosopher and atheist, Bertrand Russell, formulated the problem this way in his polemic against the faith, Why I Am Not a Christian:
    If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God.[3]
    On the one hand, God reigns and His Law is supreme. As the ultimate Sovereign, He establishes the moral rules of the universe. His commands are absolute. We must obey.

    Ethicist Scott Rae describes the view: “A divine command theory of ethics is one in which the ultimate foundation for morality is the revealed will of God, or the commands of God found in Scripture.”[4] This view is known as ethical voluntarism.

    [But] it reduces God’s goodness to His power. To say that God is good simply means that He is capable of enforcing His commands. As Russell put it, “For God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong.”

    This is the position of Islam,[5] but it is unacceptable to the Christian. Morality is not arbitrary. God is not free to call what is wrong right, and what is right wrong. The text is clear: “It is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18). God cannot sin.

    But the alternative seems no better. If the Christian asserts that morality is not arbitrary, he is caught on the second horn of the dilemma. If the standard itself is absolute such that not even God can violate it, doesn’t this make the Almighty Himself beholden to a higher law? The Sovereign becomes the subordinate. In each case, Christianity loses. Either God is not good, or He’s not sovereign. That’s the dilemma.

    Plato’s challenge forces us to consider an important detail in any discussion on the nature of morality: grounding. The word “ground” originally meant “the lowest part, base, or bottom of anything.”

    In philosophy it refers to the foundation or logical basis of a claim. Euthyphro’s task was to identify the logical grounding of piety or virtue. What base does morality “stand on”?

    Frank Beckwith and I chose a title for our book on relativism that paints a word picture: Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. Our point: Relativists who make any claim to knowledge have no basis for their assertion. They are standing not on solid ground, but on thin air.

    A law is only as legitimate as the authority upon which it rests. The U.S. government can’t pass laws governing Canadians. Our federal laws apply only to the people of this country. Individuals can’t make up laws that apply to their neighbors. They don’t have that authority.

    The founders of our country argued that even governments are subject to a higher law. Certain truths are transcendent, they argued, grounded not in human institutions but in God Himself. This appeal to higher Law was their rational justification for the morality of the American Revolution.

    The problem of grounding morality is a difficult one for atheists who claim one can have ethics without God. Certainly, an atheist can act in a manner some people consider “moral,” but it’s hard to know what the term ultimately refers to. It generally means to comply with an objective standard of good, a Law given by legitimate authority. However, without a transcendent Lawmaker (God), there can be no transcendent Law, and no corresponding obligation to be good.

    Trappist monk Thomas Merton put the challenge this way:
    In the name of whom or what do you ask me to behave? Why should I go to the inconvenience of denying myself the satisfactions I desire in the name of some standard that exists only in your imagination? Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on me in the name of nothing?[7]
    The Solution

    The general strategy used to defeat a dilemma is to show that it’s a false one. There are not two options, but three. The Christian rejects the first option, that morality is an arbitrary function of God’s power. And he rejects the second option, that God is responsible to a higher law. There is no Law over God.

    The third option is that an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness.
    So the Christian answer avoids the dilemma entirely. Morality is not anterior to God–logically prior to Him–as Bertrand Russell suggests, but rooted in His nature. As Scott Rae puts it, “Morality is not grounded ultimately in God’s commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands.” In other words, whatever a good God commands will always be good.

    The Christian’s job is not done, though, because Bertrand Russell’s observation suggests a second problem. Socrates’ challenge to Euthyphro has not been met. What is “good”? It doesn’t help to say that God is good unless we know what the term refers to.

    If the word “good” means “in accord with the nature and character of God,” we have a problem. When the Bible says “God is good,” it simply means “God has the nature and character that God has.” If God and goodness are the very same thing, then the statement “God is good” means nothing more than “God is God,” a useless tautology.

    The answer to this problem hinges on the philosophical notion of identity, expressed symbolically as A = A. When one thing is identical to another (in the way I’m using the term), there are not two things, but one. When we say God is good, we are giving additional information, namely that God has a certain quality. God is not the very same thing as goodness (identical to it). It’s an essential characteristic of God, so there is no tautology.
    A proper understanding of Christian teaching on God removes one problem, yet we still face another: What is “good”? How can we know goodness if we don’t define it first?
    Abraham knew goodness not by prior definition or by some decree of God, but through moral intuition. He didn’t need God to define justice (divine command). He knew it directly. His moral knowledge was built in.

    Even the atheist understands what moral terms mean. He doesn’t need God in order to recognize morality. He needs God to make sense of what he recognizes. (Something like this has to be the case. Regardless of how one grounds the concept of goodness, another could always ask, “But what makes that notion good?” To avoid a vicious regress, one must eventually appeal to some irreducible, primitive concept known by intuition.)

    This is precisely why the moral argument for God’s existence is such a good one. The awareness of morality leads to God much as the awareness of falling apples leads to gravity. Our moral intuitions recognize the effect, but what is the adequate cause? If God does not exist, then moral terms are actually incoherent and our moral intuitions are nonsense.

    Christians need not fear Plato on this score. When Euthyphro’s dilemma is applied to Christianity, it mischaracterizes the Biblical view of God. Goodness is neither above God nor merely willed by Him. Instead, ethics are grounded in His holy character. Moral notions are not arbitrary and given to caprice. They are fixed and absolute, grounded in God’s immutable nature.

    See also (from all differennt viewpoints): http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47024
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
    http://patientandpersistent.blogspot.com/2012/02/non-death-of-euthyphro-dilemma.html
    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/nat_fallacy.html

  35. Boris,
    I had decided not to dialog with you further but for the sake of anyone who may be tuning in to our discussion who might find your arguments valid I will reply again.

    1. The ontological argument is not valid….I never said it was.

    2. Arguments are based on evidence! The truth of the premises which make up an argument must be established (by evidence or undeniable first principles) for the argument to arrive at the conclusions.

    3. The cosmological argument is based on the premise that something exists and their can only be two types of beings, necessary and contingent. Since all beings cannot be contingent there must be a necessary being. That necessary being cannot be nature. News flash! Science supports the big bang; nature time and matter had a beginning. Everything that has a beginning needs a beginner. Now if you want to argue that there is some form of nature beyond nature that brought nature/universe into existence, then it must have been incredibly powerful and you have just arrived at surrogate for God by another name. Since it is philosophical principle that the cause must be like the effect, then it would need to be moral and intelligent.

    4. The design argument is not an argument from analogy. It depends on the Laplace’s principle of uniformity which is the basis for forensic science, geology, archeology etc. The present is the key to the past. Effects in the past have similar causes to similar effects in the past. This fundamental principle was put forth by Laplace who was an atheist. We see pottery in the present with the only known cause being, humans, so when we find pottery in the past we infer a human cause. The only cause of effects exhibiting design IN THE PRESENT, are intelligent causes, so designed effects in the past imply intelligent causes. To show the design argument is not valid, you must demonstrate non-intelligent cause YOU OBSERVE IN THE PRESENT, that result in effects that exhibit design or complex specificity. To date I am aware of no non-intelligent OBSERVABLE causes that can do that. Perhaps you can point to some examples and shatter this paradigm. By the by, where did you come up with 4 billion years for complexity to evolve in cells. Go back and review the Cambrian Explosion where life appeared sans transitional forms in a fraction of that time. There is a relatively short geological time between the most primitive forms and the most complex forms of life. That is exactly why Fred Hoyle put forth the theory of “Panspermia”, that life came from outer space and was introduced on earth. Why? Because he recognized the time on earth were too short.

    5. Your claim that Morality is based on the protecting life is mere opinion unless it has an objective ground, else you cannot complain that Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot really did anything wrong, only things you don’t personally care for. They just didn’t agree with your definition of morality. If you don’t believe in an objective ground for morality, may we all assume you will eliminate all references to right, wrong, justice and injustice from your vocabulary both here and in common conversation in your life? Just replace right and wrong with “I like or don’t like” Mother Theresa better than Hitler.

    6. Having read Demski’s work, I am unaware of him defining significant information as the “negative of entropy”. It is not just a matter of order but complex specified order (e.g. Crystal structure of Sodium Chloride vs. complex structure of cellular proteins). Further, the universe is not considered to be an open system, but a closed system. It is open for the Theist, such that the supernatural is possible. It has been a number of years since I have taken thermodynamics but it is my recollection that entropy increases as enthalpy decreases. Since enthalpy in a closed system decreases, entropy increases. The amount of energy in a closed system may be constant , but the amount of usable energy is diminishing. That is unless you know away around the second law of thermodynamics.

    7. In summary, all your counter arguments are weak. Perhaps you should offer up a Critique of Geisler’s book “Philosophy of religion” where he carefully put forth the various forms of the cosmological arguments and arrived at a form of the argument that answered the former critics. He then offered up this version to some of the brightest atheist philosophers for critique. They had little to say in reply. If the best and the brightest could not defeat this argument, then I am hardly worried that you have found the flaws which they have all missed. But it might be amusing to see you try. It is the weakness of these counterarguments that make the likes of Dawkins run away when the likes of William Lane Craig come knocking.

  36. Boris’ objections are not new, nor unique to our time. The various arguments for the existence of a god continue to be debated, and when properly presented and understood are logically secure. Now the proof of a personal, Holy GOD is not proven by these philosophical arguments directly, but through how He has revealed Himself through history. The particular revelation of His Son, Jesus Messiah is pivotal. The only refutation made against Jesus is to attack His followers or attack the idea that belief in supernatural is un-enlightened. That is a subjective rejection of the evidence of Christ’s resurrection. Note how Boris has had to fall to ideas such as “Constantine invented Christianity” or “the early followers made up the New Testament to arrange it to fit prophesies”. Yet scholars (believers and unbelievers alike) have laid these claims to rest. Jesus was in fact raised from the dead, just as we proclaim. This is known and has been “proven” in the same way any other historical fact is shown to be true.

    He has stated: “C.S. Lewis and Ray Comfort are famous for presenting false dichotomies to support their arguments.”

    I suppose by false dichotomy it is implied that there is no sin (the Ten Commandments not a sufficient basis for defining moral or good behavior). In fact, sin is a real problem- the central problem in which all men, women, children find themselves. So by rejecting the premise of sin, then there is no legitimate need for savior.

    The idea of self-determination is very attractive, an age-old temptation, and sadly leads to death.

    I also take issue with the idea that the argument from design is a disguised argument from ignorance. That is a silly statement, particularly in light of the fact that the more we learn about the universe and living beings, the more clear it is that there is necessarily a designer. The idea that life came to be at all by natural conditions plus chance has been proven mathematically and biologically impossible.

  37. S. Johnson

    I had decided not to dialog with you further but for the sake of anyone who may be tuning in to our discussion who might find your arguments valid I will reply again.

    Response: Good because once again the conversation has drifted away from the original topic and that is or was anyway Ray Comfort and his abortion video. However Ray Comfort does use these theistic arguments. I have given several rebuttals to the cosmological argument by showing that it violates the law of mass-energy conservation, which states that mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed. Nowhere in modern cosmology is the notion that mass-energy was created when the universe began its present expansion. We know the universe as we now know it had a beginning but the mass-energy that comprises the universe must always have existed in one form or another. The cosmological argument commits the fallacy of special pleading. If God could always have existed so could mass-energy. The design argument ignores the fact that organisms show evidence of bottom up design by evolution while they exhibit no evidence of top-down design. The Cambrian Explosion took place over 55 million years or so about 570 million years ago and Cambrian rock layers do not contain fossils of reptiles or mammals. This of course supports evolutionary theory completely while disproving creationism. My morality is objectively based on the value of life itself. Yours is subjectively based on what other people have told you the deity of a particular religion desires. Organisms are not closed systems they interact with their environment.

    Matt B

    Yet scholars (believers and unbelievers alike) have laid these claims to rest. Jesus was in fact raised from the dead, just as we proclaim. This is known and has been “proven” in the same way any other historical fact is shown to be true.

    Response: I refuted this claim earlier on this blog by requesting an extra-biblical biography of Jesus Christ using only evidence or documents written within 40 to 50 years of the time Jesus was supposedly crucified. You ignored my request. History knows nothing of Jesus, Paul or any of the other apostles.

    I suppose by false dichotomy it is implied that there is no sin (the Ten Commandments not a sufficient basis for defining moral or good behavior). In fact, sin is a real problem- the central problem in which all men, women, children find themselves. So by rejecting the premise of sin, then there is no legitimate need for savior.

    Response: We reject your claims that there is an afterlife and that people have souls. Since there is nothing to save or be saved from there is no need for a savior. If the central claim of your religion is not true the rest of your arguments are meaningless.

    That is a silly statement, particularly in light of the fact that the more we learn about the universe and living beings, the more clear it is that there is necessarily a designer.

    Response: Then why do fewer and fewer people believe that then? Only Bible believers are denying evolution in favor of design.

    The idea that life came to be at all by natural conditions plus chance has been proven mathematically and biologically impossible.

    Response: First of all biochemistry is not chance but rather produces complex products which interact in complex ways. This makes the calculating of odds meaningless. Creationist odds makers also wrongly assume that the protein molecule must take a particular form and the creation of life in its present form. The Miller-Urey experiment showed that the molecular ingredients of life are easy to produce.

  38. Let’s address Boris’ points beginning with the last: “The Miller-Urey experiment showed that the molecular ingredients of life are easy to produce”

    That experiment was very very interesting. It required a very tightly controlle environment, interaction from the highly skilled and intelligent experimenter who set up the conditions just as needed to produce his result. The result was some important amino acids which were unstable in the lab conditions used to create them, so they were sequestered as produced so that they might accumulate. Only some of the amino acids needed for life were produced. There are may reasons this experiment did not provide a good model for how life originated. Here’s one:

    The molecules produced were racemic- rather than homo-chimeric as found (amazingly) in living organisms. This problem of left- or right-handedness in the molecules is pivotal, because only homo-chimeric molecules must be present within the functions of cells.

    Secondly the “atomsphere” conditions used in the experiment were reducing- while it is now believed the earth’s atmosphere has always been oxygen-rich. The molecules produced in the experiment quickly break down when oxygen is available.

    While this experiment and others that followed are still discussed and argued, it is widely agreed that we’ve only found dead-ends as far as “proving” the origin of life on earth from molecular ingredients.

  39. All of creation testifies in a most rational way of God’s existance which was from the beginning, before it was made.

    Without the creation giving it’s testimony of a rational way, would there be any such thing as biology, geology, physics, or science?

    Because of the fall of man, not all of the students of these subjects act in rational ways at all times. Yet creation continues according to the way it was designed by God, according to his rules, word, and judgments against it which came about because of the fall of mankind.

  40. “If God could always have existed so could mass-energy.”
    So there we have it: my a priori is GOD: Boris’ is ‘universe’. Now, what can we do with this “information”? What ‘good’ does the (note) LAW of Thermodynamics, this interchange of [molecules] and [energy] satisfy Boris’ sense of worth and make his existence fruitful? Is cremation of a dead body an exciting answer to previous existence? This is a question for Metaphysics rather than Observation. If we are ‘free’ to choose based on the absurdety of all things being equal, then I choose GOD. Boris’ need to convince us that we all must accept his hopeless pit /means/ nothing more to me than “Misery loves company”.
    In Him, Ron M.

  41. It’s not rational to worship anything in the creation as much as God. Mass-energy (whatever that is) doesn’t compare with the glory of God. Anything that exists because God created it, may attest to his glory but it can not hold the same place as God in a rational mind.

    A good understanding is a gift of God’s grace * unto all and upon all who keep his commandments just as Psalm 111:10 teaches.

    Psalm 111:10
    The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth forever.

    * Rom 3:22, 5:18, 10:12.

  42. While this experiment and others that followed are still discussed and argued, it is widely agreed that we’ve only found dead-ends as far as “proving” the origin of life on earth from molecular ingredients.

    Response: There are several plausible explanations for the origin of life on earth. Creationism is not one of them.

    ron david metcalf

    “If God could always have existed so could mass-energy.”
    So there we have it: my a priori is GOD: Boris’ is ‘universe’.

    Response: Mine is based on empirical observation and yours on faith. I’m starting with fewer basic assumptions so my priori is to be preferred.

    Now, what can we do with this “information”? What ‘good’ does the (note) LAW of Thermodynamics, this interchange of [molecules] and [energy] satisfy Boris’ sense of worth and make his existence fruitful?

    Response: Knowing where I really came from, what I’m really made of and where I’m really going keeps me from wasting my life on a delusion.

    Is cremation of a dead body an exciting answer to previous existence? This is a question for Metaphysics rather than Observation.

    Response: Metaphysics, philosophy, theology are dead. Science is how we gain knowledge and it always has been.

    If we are ‘free’ to choose based on the absurdety of all things being equal, then I choose GOD. Boris’ need to convince us that we all must accept his hopeless pit /means/ nothing more to me than “Misery loves company”.

    Response: I find it interesting that those who live lives of self-denial and in intellectual servitude, who must tell themselves that their suffering is actually a form of joy must also tell themselves that those of us who don’t live in that manner are somehow miserable. We’re not and you know it and it irks you that we atheists decline to be as miserable as you believers tell us we ought to be. Like I’ve said several times now, I don’t care what any of the people who post or read comments on this blog believe. Why should I? I post comments about subjects that interest me but as soon as I do several people feel compelled to stray from the subject being discussed and present me with all sorts of arguments defending their religious beliefs and attacking my lack of belief. I take the time to refute your arguments so you’ll understand why I reject them.

    It’s not rational to worship anything in the creation as much as God. Mass-energy (whatever that is) doesn’t compare with the glory of God.

    Response: Mass-energy isn’t something to be worshiped. It’s what the universe and everything in it is made of and it’s been around forever. In other words there was never a time when there was nothing. There has always been something and that something is mass-energy. Not exactly glorious but fascinating don’t you think?

  43. Boris, nobody has yet produced a plausible explaination for the origin of life apart from a Creator- yet the evidence and the science perfectly indicate Creation by God. The only reason creation would not plausible is because you choose not to believe in a creator, and willfully disregard the evidence.

  44. Boris,

    You said “I have given several rebuttals to the cosmological argument by showing that it violates the law of mass-energy conservation, which states that mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed. ”

    And where did you come up with the idea that mass-energy cannot be created or distroyed. I can only assume you are relying on a mistatement of the first law of thermodynamics: “Energy cannot be created or destroyed”. The correct statement of the law is: In a closed isolated system, energy remains constant. The law says nothing about how the energy got there!! Since your rebuttal is based on a fallacious understanding of the first law, I submit your rebuttal fails.

    Once again, if you want to take down the cosmological argument, I suggest you read Geisler’s book where he quite carefully evaluates the argument in its various forms and answers the critics. His final form seems to be coherent and logically tight. As I mentioned earlier, when he sent the book out to atheist philosophers of the same caliber, they had little to say that was worth hearing.

  45. If something can’t be proved, does that mean it doesn’t exist; or only that Science may not be smart enough to understand it (yet)?
    The big problem here is that scientific method, while trying to be objective and consider all solutions to start, is LOOKING for a satisfactory solution that explains how things behave, and functions because of that knowledge. How did this preciseness become so relative when it comes to Life?
    Partly because psychology and evolution are based more upon ‘religion’ than ‘fact’. Theories are accepted by faith until a better theory explains a better way; the history of Science shows this over and over (Hawking being but the latest example of massive ego insisting on something until the formula starts falling apart).
    So saying that mass-energy is more fascinating than GOD’s glory doesn’t make sense to most of us here on this blog. Now you guys and gals can argue glitzy Science until Jesus returns and not get anywhere except deeper in your own rut; I personally prefer Wm. Wordsworth when it comes to showing GOD in nature. Again, our rules are apples & oranges; so I bid you Godspeed, however you interpret it.
    In Him, Ron M.

  46. Boris,

    One additional comment in reply to your statement “There are several plausible explanations for the origin of life on earth. Creationism is not one of them. ”

    Have you read “Signature in the Cell” a very carefully crafted book that reviews all the proposed theories for the orgin of life? If you can counter Myer’s thesis as to why each of these theories fails to account for the information rich systems that are needed, let me know. Some fairly prominent evolutionary biologists have tried to their own embarrasment. Their counterclaims have been evaluated in the follow-up book, “Signature of Controversy”.

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*