Response to "My Question for Theists" from the1janitor (from youtube)

Link to the Original Video 

Thank you for the opportunity to engage with you on these questions/comments. I hope that you will not read in any derogatory or combative tone into the responses that follow as there was none intended – at all! And forgive me for any typos. I did this on a cell phone. Thanks!

Comment: Arguing with a religious person is akin to arguing with someone who says "normal 2+2 is 4 but in an alternate dimension it is something else and that is what I believe". 

Response: I do not think that is a good analogy.  Such a case is a basic logical contradiction. It posits that A equals both A and non A.  However, there is no logical contradiction in positing the existence of God – unless, of course, the existence of God is firmly established as logically impossible – but at this point in the video you have yet to argue that point. I will get to that in more detail as I respond to some of your other points.

Comment: Debates are usually unproductive

Response: I agree wholeheartedly.

Comment: Arguing to win is not the point

Response: Again, I agree. C.S. Lewis said that we ought to be arguing toward the truth rather than around the truth. To that end, I have a small disagreement with your next point.

Comment: The point is to understand the other persons point of view and the identify the difference

Response: I think that you are right, but only to a point. Ultimately, we ought to be seeking the truth – not merely to identify our differences. Even so, I think understanding other points of view is a HUGE part of that process.

Comment: Do logic and science always apply?

Response: Logic; yes. Otherwise, we have no reason for trusting anything that is said, observed, studied or otherwise. This conversation I am typing might actually be about pop-tarts, even though I think I am responding to your video. As for science; that depends what you mean by science.  If you mean empirical science then I think the answer is clearly no. There are limitations to empirical science. For example, what is “logic” made of? How much does it weigh? Some answers cannot be arrived at through empirical investigation. That is why the fields of philosophy, metaphysics, psychology, etc are necessary. We also have to acknowledge that science doesn’t actually say anything -- scientists do. All data has to be interpreted and all people interpret based on their own presuppositions. What is more, that raises a whole other line of questions. Namely, where does logic come from and why is it reliable? If it is entirely natural, then why is it not subject to the same changes as other aspects of nature? Can it go extinct like a species? The law of gravity applies in certain places in the universe where gravity is present, but not in others. Is logic the same way? Are there places where there is less logic present and 2+2 actually does equal 7 instead of 4? You might sarcastically say “Yes, in Churches!”  And we could both laugh at that. But ultimately, you and I would agree that is absurd. We both know that the laws of logic exist.  What is more, we both agree that they are unchanging and were there before we discovered them. How does atheism account for that? The theist has no trouble grounding the eternal, unchangeable laws of logic and reason – they are grounded in an eternal, unchanging mind – i.e. God. Alright, now we move on to your real question.

BIG QUESTION: What is it about religion that makes you okay with suspending everything you otherwise KNOW to be true about the universe?

Response: I am not okay with that. But I think I can safely assume that you will not be satisfied with that answer. So, I will go a bit further. You are proposing a false dichotomy. Namely that logic, reason, science (i.e. everything we know about the universe) are necessarily opposed to Theism and vice versa. In fact, the same accusation might be made against Atheism’s willingness to suspend everything you otherwise know to be true about the universe. Consider the comments of the naturalist biologist Richard Lewontin. According to Lewontin (a naturalist),

                "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of  its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

According to Lewontin, Atheists simply cannot follow the evidence where it leads. Is that science? Is that logical? Of course not! I am not suggesting that you, or any other Atheist must first believe in God in order to do proper science. However, I am convinced that ruling out God or a supernatural explanation before you even start betrays the entire enterprise of seeking truth. But let’s move on to the next (related) point.

Comment: I say that on the assumption that an all powerful, sentient, omniscient being is illogical and invalid.

Response: That needs to be established, not just assumed. You have the roof, but you need walls to support it or else you do not have a house. I could stop there, but let me provide an example of why I think any such argument fails. Modern scientists often run into road blocks in their research. That is, until they formulate some theory that can account for the relevant data and allows them to move past the road block. For example, consider quarks, string theory, black holes, dark energy, the multi-verse etc. None of these have ever been observed. Some of these posit unfathomable amounts respective to power, time and dimensions. The numbers used to describe them boggle the human mind.  I could say “That is very unscientific!” But I would not do that. In the same way, it is not unscientific to posit the existence of an omnipotent (power), eternal (time), omnipresent (space), being if doing so accounts for the relevant data. I won’t take up your time by running through all of the arguments for theism (cosmological, teleological, moral -- I am sure you are familiar). I think it should suffice, for the purpose of your original question, to show that it is not illogical or unscientific to examine the relevant data and interpret it as pointing to a timeless, spaceless, limitless, moral intelligence.


Comment: Well, some people just believe because it makes them feel better, and that is good whether or not it is true.

Response:  For the record, that is not the Christian perspective. I know that the original question was about general Theism, not Christianity in particular, but I want to zero in for a second on something significant with regard to this particular comment. The Apostle Paul said that if Jesus was not raised from the dead then we are more pitiful than anyone else. I would think that most Atheists would totally love that about Christianity. In short, Christianity is a faith that depends entirely on the historicity of a past event – the resurrection of Christ. If we take Paul seriously, then is a religion entirely based on evidence! Just because that isn’t the way most people approach it doesn’t change it as a fact -- if the resurrection didn’t happen, then Christianity is empty and being a Christian is pitiful. Like I said, that sounds to me like a claim that any Atheist should be happy to oblige. As you said at the end of this video, it is silly to say that it simply doesn’t matter. It is of potentially eternal significance. At that point, a person who wants to determine the truth of Christianity simply needs to investigate relevant and scholarly works available on the resurrection and determine for themselves if they hold any water. In fact, people like J. Warner Wallace and Lee Strobel have famously written books chronicling their investigations and subsequent conversions from Atheism to Christianity

Comment: Some people say "you cannot disprove God exists so why do I need proof" to which you ask, what are we accepting as proof -- typically we use science an logic.

Response: I think your point is excellent, but it plays for both teams. I am interested in following the evidence where it leads. But I would ask you, “what are you willing to accept as proof for the existence of God?” If science and logic point univocally to an eternal, spaceless, timeless, moral, creator of the universe; would that be sufficient proof of His existence? If your answer is “no”, then it would seem that science and logic aren’t the criteria by which proof is established. Maybe your objections to the existence of God are emotional, moral, or otherwise, but that would be precisely what you decry as being “irrational and unscientific” about the reason many people hold to Theism. At that point, the idea of proof is totally subjective. We can both agree that we want something more substantial than that.

Comment: Using science and logic it is easy to prove not only that God doesn't exist but that He CAN'T exist. 

Response: I think you are swimming upstream with that claim. I don’t know any reputable philosophers who would maintain that it is impossible for God to exist. Highly improbable? Sure. But that leads to your 3 challenges as to the likelihood of God’s existence.

Comment: Challenge to omnipotence.  Omnipotence entails that God could create an indestructible wall that he can also destroy and that is a contradiction.

Response: The premise is flawed because you have misrepresented omnipotence. Omnipotence does not mean that God can do everything imaginable. It only means that He can do everything that is logically possible. Therefore, it is logically impossible for God to create a wall that He cannot destroy; or a boulder too heavy for Him to lift; or a married bachelor or any other such logical impossibility.

Comment: Challenge to omnipresence. You said, “That's easy, I am here, I can't be over there. I cannot occupy two spaces at once or all spaces at all times.” 

Response: Again, the premise is flawed because you have misrepresented omnipresence. Omnipresence does not mean that God has a physical body that is either present in all spaces equally or stretched out through all spaces. If God is an immaterial mind, omnipresence means that God is mentally present at all times and places.  In that sense, omnipresence is very closely tied to omniscience. So, let’s move on to that.

Comment: Challenge to omniscience. Omniscience entails the knowledge of how to create all reality, but reality must first exist in order to have that knowledge which is a contradiction. 

Response:  I am not trying to sound like a broken record, but the premise misrepresents omniscience. It does not entail His knowing how to create Himself. If God is uncreated (as Theism maintains), then that would be a logical impossibility. Just like omnipotence means having power to do all things that power can do, omniscience means knowing all things that can be known.  The creation of an uncreated being is not something that can be known.

Comment: Why don't the normal rules of logic apply to God? 

Response: I hope that I have demonstrated that I dislike that idea as much as you. Thanks again!

Isaiah 6:1-7

Just turned in a 12 page exegesis on Isaiah 6:1-7. Maybe it will be good enough to let you read it some day. Maybe it won't. Either way, it was a useful exercise. I would rather write 10 exegesis papers in a semester than 1 research paper. I just like digging through the Scripture and picking things apart to find nuggets. I will share one with you.

         "God sent one of the Seraphim to take a burning coal from the altar. These coals were used to burn sacrifices for sin offerings. What happened next is so profound as to be a microcosm of the entire canon of Scripture. The angelic being placed the burning ember on Isaiah’s mouth and said “Your guilt is taken away, and your sin is atoned for”.
         The original audience obviously did not understand the full significance of this strange ceremony. However, through the eyes of the New Testament, we can see exactly what was happening. God was showing Isaiah that he absolutely could not save himself. His only hope was for God to go to the altar and apply the cleansing power to his life. Through the Seraphim, God transformed the instrument of death – a burning coal – into the instrument of life. Animals were bound and placed upon the fiery altar. By the altar’s fire, Isaiah’s bonds were loosed. These are all parallels to what Christ did for me at Golgotha. I was completely unable to save myself. My only hope was for God to go to the cross and apply its cleansing power to my life. Through His son, God transformed the instrument of death – a Roman crucifix – into the instrument of life. Jesus was bound and hung upon a cruel cross. By His death upon that cross, my bonds were loosed."

Anyway...good night.

Life In the Celestial Pool Hall

It seems to me that life might be likened to a game of pool. **Note: Like any analogy, the following comparison falls apart if you start pressing all of the specifics. Even so, I believe the conclusion of the thought experiment is helpful.** When all "goes right", each ball falls into the hole when you want it to. When that does not happen, things bounce around chaotically and you have to approach it from a different angle. Now, let us imagine for a moment that the numbered balls are the possible circumstances in your life. You are the cue ball. Now imagine that there are hundreds of billions of numbered balls and billions of cue-balls coming from all different directions. There are even new numbered balls and cue-balls being being added as the game continues. Most of us are content to sit around on the comfy green felt. We may even pray to the guy holding the big stick for the circumstances and people we want to "fall" in a particular way that seems best to us. Sometimes that will happen without us having to move. More often, the only way that will happen is if our position changes. And to that end, we have to be willing to take the hit. What is more, we have to be ready for the confrontations that will inevitably arise when that happens. Notice also, with so many balls ricocheting about, it is highly unlikely that anyone will be able to remain stationary and untouched for very long regardless of their own intentions.

Thanksgiving "Mini-Sermon"

I am genuinely thankful for all of the difficult circumstances that are teaching me to more readily run into the arms of grace. It is a lifelong process and that means more, (probably even greater), difficulties lie ahead. It is easy to say during these times; "life is not just about being happy". In a superficial sense, that is true. But in a much more real since, I am learning that the greatest source of happiness/joy comes from enjoying God in Christ. Romans 5:9-11 makes it clear that as great as justification is -- as great as it is to be rescued from God's wrath -- even greater than these is the gift of eternally enjoying God in Christ. Too often, my satisfaction with temporary, earthy happiness gets in the way of enjoying God. All the while, thinking that I am happy, I am actually experiencing a dramatically inferior happiness. I cling so tightly to these that it is spiritually (and sometimes physically) painful for them to be stripped away. Like C.S. Lewis says: “Our passions are not too strong, they are too weak. We are far too easily pleased." So, to conclude this "mini-sermon"; I thank God for sovereignly allowing the pain, suffering and difficulties that continue to strip away any delusions I have of finding true happiness in anything but Him. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!!

The foolishness of, "If God would just..."

I would like to argue that one of the most common complaints of the skeptic might also be one of the most foolish -- "If God wanted to get me to believe, then He could do so very easily by just doing...'X'."

The problem with this statement is that it is impossible to know whether or not the occurrence of "X" would ACTUALLY cause the skeptic to believe. For instance, let us substitute 3 different scenarios in for "X".

"If God wanted to get me to believe then he could do so very easily by just...."
       1. "Bringing my brother back from the dead."
       2. "Appearing physically in Time Square."
       3. "Causing 40 days of darkness upon my request."

I want to go through these one by one and argue why I think it would be foolish to ASSUME that the occurrence of any these miracles would ACTUALLY guarantee the skeptic coming to belief in God.

1. The skeptic is visited by his resurrected brother. His first thought will almost certainly be "How is this possible?" At this point, he will search for any way of explaining the phenomenon without accepting the miraculous. He will find multiple possible (although improbable) explanations. For example, it is possible that his brother elaborately faked his own death. It is also possible that his brother had a secret identical twin. Even more improbable, but still possible, is that someone could have gotten extensive plastic surgery, learned to impersonate his brother and studied important minutia about his life to seem convincing.

2. The first problem with God appearing physically is that we wouldn't necessarily know what to look for. Would He be in human form or would He manifest Himself in another way? A burning bush would be quickly dismissed nowadays as special effects. On a related note, the second problem is that no matter where He might appear, only the people who were there could say that they actually witnessed it. And even if you had thousands of people saying that they saw Him and something caught on video tape, there would always be an overwhelming majority of the human race (billions of people) that weren't there and would be very skeptical of such evidence in the age of computer generated effects and of tremendous illusions performed in public.

3. The third scenario seems to me like it would be the easiest for the skeptic to dismiss. Amazing coincidence? Sure. Miracle from God? Doubtful. Since it involves a natural phenomenon, there would inevitably be an abundance of scientific explanations (no matter how contrived) for the event in question.

Now, to be fair, I could envision this argument easily being turned on it's head. For instance, a skeptic might say that the only reasonable Theist is one willing to say, "If 'X' happened then I would no longer believe in God." From that point the skeptic could argue that nothing substituted for "X" would ever guarantee that the Theist would abandon their faith. It is just as likely that they would try to find ways to explain it that allow them to maintain belief in God. However, while this inverted version of the original argument may serve highlight the foolishness of many forms of Theism, I think it fails against Christianity because the Christian claims to have "properly basic" evidence for God based on experience of Him. But that opens up an entirely different discussion.

So, just to wrap up, I think that this argument demonstrates the foolishness of a very common complaint raised by skeptics. Furthermore, by turning the argument on it's head it can be observed that both sides who would seek to maintain their point of view against proposed evidence (empirical, philosophical, hypothetical or otherwise) are ultimately doing so based on faith.