7 Failed Arguments presented by SJ “Twitter Apologist”

What is it with Christian apologists having a major deficit in integrity and honesty? Ray Comfort repeats the same old crap that was debunked over a decade ago; Ken Ham still lying his ass off; and SJ “Twitter apologist” is now making YouTube videos literally reading verbatim the blog she wrote about Aron Ra… the very same blog I refuted about a month ago!!!

Not only that, she is re-tweeting her “response” blogs to several people… some of which have already made their rebuttals back, and YET she is still re-tweeted her refuted crap like nothing happened. And by the looks of her feed, she’s re-tweeting these blogs almost every other day, and this one I’m addressing is one of them. Ergo, lack of integrity. If TWL knew out blogs on history, biology, physics or even agriculture were proven wrong, we would halt sharing our material and thank the one who proved us wrong.

This one blog she wrote in response to a guy named Tony Murphy (@Hackenslash2). Tony already made his rebuttal to SJ on his blog, so what’s the point for me to even bother? Honestly, not much of a point, just a little hope. At best, a hope that a part of my work gets her to re-examine her beliefs and start on a road toward non-belief. At least, a hope that if more people call her out on her nonsense, maybe she will think twice about repeating material that has been heavily criticized.

Could this work? Maybe. She’s not a professional apologist who does this for $$$ like Ray Comfort, J Wallace or Lee Strobel, those guys have absolute zero credibility or shame. SJ does this mainly in her free time. Remember that blog I wrote about her and Aron Ra? Well, and she knows about it, and she wrote a half-assed response to me in which she only addressed 1/3 of my blog, and of that she only picked snippits of each response. I wrote a blog in response to her half-assed response, and that’s when she threw in the towel and gave up. Well, it’s possible if she is called out more often, she’ll pollute the internet a bit less with her limp-noodle apologetics.

Tony’s original post will be presented first in bold, followed by SJ’s counter-responses in italics.

1. Argument on omniscience: “To summarise what I said there, because we’re limited to what we can observe, and because there’s no observation we can make, even in principle, that can tell us that what we observe is, in a fully ontological sense, real, we have to stop short of this kind of absolute statement and admit that there’s a limit to what we can know… It’s quite literally an omni-limitation, and it applies equally to any entity that could reasonably be described as a deity.”

 

Tony’s assumption that we can “equally” apply our physical limitations to our Creator places God on equal footing as man. One cannot logically assume that the eternal Creator of our magnificent universe should be put on equal footing as the inhabitants on the third rock from the sun in the Milky Way Galaxy.

Tony isn’t assuming that the Christian God is “on equal footing as man.” Obviously Tony doesn’t think that, considering he is addressing as a being believed to have no limits.

So this isn’t an issue of thinking God is like man, it’s an issue of the nature of a unlimited being itself. So the question is does a unlimited being logically possible or is it not?

If we consider the billions of people who have inhabited this planet and the many great minds who occupied positions of authority over the centuries, one can make the reasonable assertion that all of the great minds together do not match the knowledge of the mind from which they were derived. Each man is apportioned a share of a much greater mind and can never exceed that greater mind, just as a river can never exceed its source. And our source knows all.

 

“Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite” Psalm 147:5.

If God “knows all,” then the message of “free will” existing in the Abrahamic faiths is a lie. We’ll get to that later.

Tony is correct in his observation that humans are limited in what we can observe. Yet what we observe in the physical world is as the tip of an iceberg. Beneath the surface of our observations lies the truth.

Does that imply that there is something beyond the “physical world” that is capable of being observed? If so, then what is it?

The disciple Paul pointed to the importance of opening our eyes to the spiritual world when he made the following observation in his letter to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 4:8) “So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary and what is unseen is eternal.”

How does it makes sense to fix our eyes on something that, by the Bible’s own description, cannot be seen? Things like Atoms and wind have the courtesy of being measurable and testable to prove they really are there, but how are we supposed to measure and verify the existence of the supernatural?

Let’s do an experiment. Below is an image of three identical jars. Each one is the same weight and equal in all dimensions.

As you can see, one of them is full of coins. BUT the left jar is full of non-existent coins. In the right jar, it is full of “supernatural” coins.

Now, let’s mix the jars around.

Can you tell which jar has the “supernatural” coins in it?

Since the “supernatural” coins have the properties as the non-existent dice, the Law of Identity tells us that supernatural is the same as non-existent.

To give credit where credit is due: I first heard this experiment from Tracey Harris on the Atheist Experience almost a decade ago.

2. Argument on omnipotence: “Can god construct a pile of bricks so heavy that he can’t lift it?” If he can’t, he’s not omnipotent. If he can, he’s not omnipotent.

 

To answer this question, one must first consider the characteristics of our Creator, along with the creation that He has advanced. Envision the universe and its planets, stars, and ever expanding dimensions. Hugh Ross (2016, p. 75) states, “A remarkable sequence of events over the course of a billion years somehow worked together to place the solar system’s eight planets (not to mention its other objects) in their current orbital positions. The observation that these positions provide optimally for the existence and survival of advanced life on Earth adds considerable weight to what science and philosophers refer to as the anthropic principle, or the law of human existence. Some loathe it while others embrace it for the enormity of its implications. In brief, the anthropic principle states that all features of the universe appear fine-tuned for the benefit of human life.” This principle forms the foundation of the teleological argument for God’s existence.

The anthropic principle does not answer the question: can God create a pile of rocks that he cannot lift?

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a German philosopher (1646-1716), advanced this version of the cosmological argument in support of God (Craig, 2010).

 

P1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.

 

P2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, the explanation is God.

 

P3. The universe exists.

 

P4. The universe has an explanation of its existence.

 

C. God.

That was hands down the dumbest argument for God I have heard all year!

Before I go into the details of each premise, here’s a way I can show how dumb it is for even the theists. (We are Trolling with LOGIC after all)

P1) Everything that exists has an explanation of it’s existence.

P2) If the oceans have an explanation of it’s existence, the answer is Poseidon.

P3) The oceans exist.

P4) The oceans have an explanation of it’s existence

C) Poseidon exists.

Or try replacing the word “God” with Cthulu, or Allah, or Krishna.

Or hell, try replacing the word “God” with “Bender.”

..and don’t forget “Benders” bastard child, Zoidsus!

Not that we’ve had a good laugh, let’s dissect Leibniz’s shit argument.

If Premise 1 (P1) was true, and theists believe God exists, then it logically demands that God’s existence must have an explanation. After all P1 is straight-forward and does not provide any exceptions. If theists claim that God doesn’t have an explanation as to how God came into existence “because God’s always existed,” then that blows Premise 1 apart like a H-bomb. If certain things do not need an explanation for it’s existence, then why can’t we save a step and apply that to the universe? After all, that is what Occam’s Razor would favor.

Premise 2 (P2) is fallacious. It is already assuming that the explanation is “God,” particularly one specific God of a specific religion.

Around a century ago, scientists proffered the Big Bang Theory of the universe. The Big Bang theory states that around 13.8 billion years ago, all matter in the universe was concentrated into an incredibly tiny point. A hot explosion occurred and the universe began to expand and is still expanding today, as evidenced by fact that galaxies are continuing to move away from us. The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation of the how the universe came into being (Howell, 2017), despite its theological implications.

What are its theological implications? Since we know that time, space, and matter began with the Big Bang, what existed prior to its expansion had to be unbounded by time (eternal), intentional, powerful, and immaterial. What existed prior had to have the ability to power inflation of the universe and stop an infinite regression of matter. These are the characteristics we attribute to God: the uncaused cause. In other words, the characteristics of our Creator must far exceed the limits of His creation.

Why must the answer be something that is immaterial, intentional, powerful and eternal? If I make a chair, an object that is material and bound in space, does that mean I am somehow immaterial and eternal?

The one who formed and designed planets and stars certainly would not be limited by a “pile of bricks” of any size. Tony has mischaracterized our Creator as one bounded by physical limitations, yet God is metaphysical, omnipotent, and far beyond anything we can even conceive.

So is SJ saying that there are no amount of bricks of any size that can be too heavy for God?

If so, then God is not omnipotent.

“And looking at them, Jesus said to them, ‘With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” Matthew 19:26.

Challenge then: can God make a triangle with 5 sides?

Can God create a being greater then himself? He can do the impossible, right?

3. Argument on omnipresence: “This means that, on its own, something being in multiple locations is not an attribute that points to divinity.”

 

To be in multiple locations at once is impossible for humans. We cannot physically and concurrently be in India and Japan or in any two distinct locations at once. Only one unhindered by the boundaries of time and a physical body can be concurrently in our past, present, and future: God. In other words, omnipresence is an attribute of God.

The Transcendence vs. Omiprensence Argument (“omnipresent” is defined as “the state of being simultaneously present in all locations.”)

P1: If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e. outside of space and time)

P2: If God exists, then he is omnipresent

P3: To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space

P4: To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space

P5: Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4).

C: Therefore it is impossible for god to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

Syllogistically, the argument can be stated as:

P1: God is both non-physical and omnipresent (as defined above).
P2: As a non-physical being, God necessarily possesses no physical properties
P3: Location is a physical property
C1: Therefore, necessarily, God cannot have the property of location
C2: Therefore, necessarily, God is not omnipresent
C3: C2 contradicts P1
C4: Therefore, an omnipresent, non-physical God cannot exist

The Omnipresence and Immutability Argument

P1: A perfect being is not subject to change.

P2: A perfect being knows everything.

P3: A being that knows everything always knows what time it is.

P4: A being that always knows what time it is, is subject to change.

P5: A perfect being is subject to change.

P6: A perfect being is not perfect being; Finally therefore;

C: There is no perfect being.

Pretty much anyway you slice it, the Christian god cannot be omnipresent.

4. Argument on omni-benevolence: “Now, a simple reading of any of the major holy texts of monotheism will rapidly disabuse you of the notion that the entity described in them is in any way good.”

“If God were good, He would wish to make His creatures perfectly happy, and if God were almighty He would be able to do what He wished. But creatures are not happy. Therefore God lacks either goodness, or power, or both. This is the problem of pain, in its simplest form” –Lewis, 1940, p. 17).

The problem of pain makes the assumption that God wants to make His creatures perfectly happy and that making us happy should be a benevolent God’s goal. But we are not always happy, so we know this is not God’s goal. Atheists who justify their atheism with the problem of pain protest this point. Their perfect vision of the world is a Garden of Eden in which everyone has free will to do what they want. Yet this conception of a Garden of Eden is impossible to achieve: Adam and Eve proved that. Free will is always accompanied by sin, and we all sin, and sin corrupts paradise. Enter the earth.

Does God have free will? If so, by SJ’s own logic, then her God is always accompanied by sin. If her God is not accompanied by sin, then it is illogical to claim that “free will is always accompanied by sin” because God proves one can exist without the other.

If God cannot sin because it goes against his good and incorruptible nature, then that proves that a being can exist that is both incorruptible and still have free will.

This demonstrates another parallel with abusive human relationships, in that we spend so much time absolutely focused on these celestial dictators, and yet not seeing them at all. God is supposedly a being that enjoyed the option “total free choice + no suffering.” Totally free choice with full knowledge of good and evil, but experienced no suffering. It was impossible to harm this being, in so doing would diminish it’s greatness in some way, violating it’s divine incorruptibility. So free choice and suffering were never inevitably paired. You didn’t have to either accept both or reject both, not if you were incorruptible. So why weren’t we created in this incorruptible image? Why are we down here in these bizarre fragile bodies being infected, beaten, starved, raped, tortured and murdered while this supposed Creator enjoyed free choice devoid of all suffering?

“The demand of the loveless and the self-imprisoned that they should be allowed to blackmail the universe: that till they consent to be happy (on their own terms) no one else shall taste joy: that theirs should be the final power; that hell should be able to veto heaven” (Lewis, 1946).

If there is a Hell (and given the lack of proof, it certainly doesn’t appear to exist) and it really is the case that people who live on their own terms ultimately “send themselves to Hell,” as some apologists would say and the punishment continues forever, this rashly supposes that no one in Hell has ever changed their mind! If Jesus died for our sins, to grant everyone forgiveness, what’s the point if that offer is not extended to those who changed their minds? According to Christian theology, beings such as angels are capable of changing their minds and they get cast out of Heaven. Why should Hell be any different when a person changes their mind and thus be accepted by Heaven? After all, God loves all, wants all to be with him, and will accept anyone who choose him, right?

Isn’t the Bible’s description of reasonable justice is “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” not eternal torture in Hell for an eye and eternal torture for a tooth?

God is the one who built the world, so it’s his game, and he makes the rules. Christians believe God is incorruptible (while having free will), yet God creates humans corruptible. So the game is make humans corruptible, and then makes every generation born guilty sinners so he can hold them over a furnace to burn them for eternity, and the only way out is if you praise him forever. Ever saw the Saw films? If so, remember when Jigsaw threatens to kill someone unless they obey him and his rules? Here’s what Jigsaw said to the character Amanda: “You will give yourself to me. Every cell in your body. Is that understood?” Someone who puts people in a dangerous situation and then demands everlasting worship to escape can only be described as a monster. At least Jigsaw let his captors know they were caught in his sick games. The God of the Bible doesn’t even give us that courtesy. The God character of the Bible thought, “I’ll make them suffer for thousands of years, then after a few centuries have past, I’ll kill my son during a time with no cameras, surrounded by illiterate people who believe things on hearsay, and then punish anyone who doesn’t believe this story out of hundreds of thousands of mythologies.” He could have written the rules with the Stars, have Jesus live forever to spread the word in every nation, but nope. All we are left with is “believe in this particular mythology, or you will face eternal punishment because you deserve it.”

But hell cannot veto heaven so such blackmail is futile. Furthermore, stating that God’s goal should be to prevent all evil to keep us happy all of the time does not speak to our purpose. We are not here with a singular goal of being happy. We are here to grow spiritually, to overcome challenges, and to become more Christ-like. Our ultimate goal is to leave the world in a better place than it was prior to our entry.

If God is not meant to prevent all evil and keep us happy, then what’s the point of Heaven?

If God is not meant to prevent all evil, then he’s not omnibenevolent.

If God is not meant to prevent evil, then why are we expected to? SJ says our goal is to leave the world a better place, but what’s the point of doing so if the creator is not meant to prevent evil? Even if every human became a saint, there would still be hurricanes and deadly diseases, and according to SJ, her God doesn’t have to do a damn thing to that evil, ergo humans will still suffer when it is within God’s ability and power to end all suffering. SJ’s God is the King of Torture.

If you are a parent, would you leave your toddler alone in a room with a large open canister full of rat poison? Wouldn’t you, as a responsible parent, remove the canister and/or place it elsewhere where your child couldn’t reach it? If you knew something was dangerous to your kids, why place it within reaching distance and leave it so accessible? A parent can easily move the canister into a locked garage. (and if you happen to be a god, why place a cursed tree in the same garden as your creations? Wouldn’t it be smarter to place the cursed tree on a far away island, or on freaking Mars?! Seriously, did I just out-smart God?)

If the God character (the ultimate judge) deems it unnecessary to jump in and prevent a person from doing a bad thing, doesn’t that logically follow that humans should not jump in and prevent other people from doing bad things? If I saw a person about to rape someone, should I just do nothing since God will not get involved? If God (the ultimate judge) doesn’t do anything to stop evil, who are we to stop evil?

If God deems it unnecessary to jump in and punish people after committing terrible acts, why should we imprison anyone for criminal acts? Therefore, should we just free every prisoner because God didn’t lock them away himself? Aren’t we robbing the criminals of their “God given” free will by forcing them to obey the rules and laws of morality and society? Or what about forcing them to obey the rules of the Ten Commandments? If God doesn’t deem it necessary to force humans to obey, why should we force criminals (and all humans) to obey?

Through the example of Jesus Christ, we see the way the Lord uses adversity and pain to grow our spirits. We all have examples of times in which we have been broken (or challenged) and how the adversity we faced made us stronger people. To become stronger, we overcame our fears, our self-pity, our anger, and our despair. By witnessing hatred, we developed a stronger appreciation for love. By witnessing hubris, we developed an appreciation for humility.  By witnessing tragedy, we grew empathy. By witnessing injustice and discrimination, we became more just and more tolerant of those unlike us. By witnessing immorality, we became more moral. We live by the example of Christ who overcame the enormous challenge of experiencing the hatred of His children as they beat and crucified Him without mercy. And He loved them and prayed for their redemption.

Did the Christian God have to witness hatred, hubris, injustice, etc etc etc. first hand from some higher or equal cosmic entities in order to understand these things?

If not, then why force us to?

“Imagine yourself as a living house. God comes in to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand what He is doing. He is getting the drains right and stopping the leaks in the roof and so on; you knew that those jobs needed doing and so you are not surprised. But presently He starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably and does not seem to make any sense. What on earth is He up to? The explanation is that He is building quite a different house from the one you thought of – throwing out a new wing here, putting on an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards. You thought you were being made into a decent little cottage: but He is building a palace. He intends to come and live in it Himself” (Lewis, 1946).

Instead of directing our energies to battle God, we should direct our energies to understand God’s intentions for us. He wants us to emerge from the earth victorious. He is our biggest cheerleader. God is omnibenevolent and everything He does is out of His immense love for us.

Consider this: you’re walking down the street of your neighborhood, but the new neighbor runs out and stops you and tells you this: “Hey neighbor, I’ve got good news! I decided not to torture you!”

You ask what the F he’s talking about, so he explains, “well, you didn’t love me like the way I wanted you to, so I built a large torture chamber in my basement. It had everything: spikes, hammers, nails, acid, electric clamps, everything and I was going to trap you down there and torture you day in and day out. It’s still there, but it’s okay now! I decided to send my own child down there instead of you. He was only down there for three minutes, but now he’s no longer down there. He’s in the living room now eating lunch, he’s totally fine. But after what he did, I no longer have to torture you. Isn’t that great! To celebrate, now you can worship me, kiss my feat and praise my name. If you do that, I will let you live in the upstairs bedroom… otherwise if you don’t worship me, I will send you to the torture room and throw away the key. Wanna come in for coffee?”

If some stranger came up to another strange and threatened him like that, the only rational and right thing to do would to call the cops and get away from that sadistic and mad individual.

“Stop quarreling with God! If you agree with Him, you will have peace at last, and things will go well for you” – Job 22:21

We need to surrender to God and to obey His calling by taking up our crosses and fulfilling our duties and missions. Through dutifulness, obedience, and surrender comes joy, the true joy that is impossible to attain if in battle against God.

Consider Isaac Asimov’s book “Runaround” where (spoilers!) two scientists travel to the planet Mercury. They need a vital supply of Selenium for life support. So they build a robot named Speedy, programmed with the 3 Laws of Robotics.

1) First Law – A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2) Second Law – A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3) Third Law – A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

So they send Speedy out to get the Selenium. What should have been a quick mission, Speedy is gone for hours and hours, even though he has not stopped running. The scientists investigate, and they see Speedy running in circles near the pond of Selenium. It doesn’t take them long to realize the problem: Speedy is caught between Law 3 and Law 2. The closer Speedy gets the pool of Selenium, there are deadly gases that can hurt Speedy, so Law 3 forces him to run away. When he is safely far enough from the gases, Law 2 kicks in and Speedy must obey the orders of the scientists because if he does not get that Selenium, the humans will die.

The scientists eventually stop Speedy and take him back to their base. Back at base, Speedy starts to spill endless apologies and filled with intense fear about being judged. But the scientists repeatedly tell Speedy that it is not his fault. Speedy wasn’t the one who placed himself with flawed programming.

As humans, our brains are flawed. Our brains are hard wired through the amygdala to judge whether people are trustworthy in less then a second based ENTIRELY on the structures of a person’s face. This is one example of a hard-wired human bias. Psychologists have identified dozens of biases involving memory, visual recognition, decision making and social perception and behavior (bandwagon effect, Barnum effect, confirmation bias, outgroup homogeneity bias, outcome bias, distinction bias, trait ascription bias, and many more). ALL these things operate outside our awareness and out of our control. All of these things distort how we process reality. This isn’t some case of random birth defects or environmental accidents, this is normal brain functions in every human.

So, who is to blame for programming us this way? In Isaac Asimov’s “Runaround” Speedy’s designers come forth and apologize for Speedy’s flawed programming and they take responsibility, reassuring Speedy that he is not to blame. In the case of Christians who believe God made them as they are with flawed programming that mess with their perceptions of reality, shouldn’t their God step forward and do the same as the scientists in “Runaround”?

No. In the Christian theology, all the blame is put on us humans. God takes no responsibility in creating us defecting and corruptible. Even though we didn’t design ourselves with flawed programming, we are told we are flawed and it’s all our fault, thus we deserve to be punished.

5. Argument on vicarious redemption: “I alone must bear the burden – whatever that might be – for the things I’ve said and done. The idea that I could simply divest myself of this responsibility is anathema to me, as it should be to any entity with any moral rectitude. This, completely aside from the accompanying suggestions that a) this occurs with absolutely no input from me concerning my desires in this regard and b) that the process for this has precisely nothing to do with my contributions to society and the well-being of humanity, relies only on believing in an entity that, should it actually be worthy of the appellation ‘deity’, should have neither want nor need of my belief or, indeed, my worship.” Tony goes on to say that humans invented this notion as a means of scapegoating.

Tony is correct in his assertion we should hold ourselves accountable. God also holds us accountable though He gave us free will to make choices that sometimes go against His will.

If human beings are born “fallen” (i.e. born with a predisposition to sim) then how can we be held responsible for our sins?

If for every instance in which people do something something evil, they “could have” avoiding doing it, then what does it mean to say that we are “fallen”? If humans beings are born sinful, then what does it mean to say that sin is avoidable? That appears to be as confusing as saying humans are born with lungs yet breathing oxygen is avoidable. “If you wanted to” is an important caveat here, because even if you can do what you want, as Schopenhaeur said, you can’t want what you want, and according to the Bible, even wanting something you are not supposed to is a sin. If you are born with sinful wants, how can you be morally free?

Let’s suppose there were a person who always did and wanted good things and never committed a sin. There “could” be such a person, could there not? Could that person be said to have a sinful nature, or be “fallen”? Such a person would be indistinguishable from a non-fallen person who did not have a sinful nature. It seems to me that one can only meaningfully say that a person has a sinful nature if they actually commit sins.

If we will not do good because our wills are tainted by the fall (which God is responsible for), then the only sense in which we “could” do otherwise is if we had never been fallen. Since having certain desires are sinful, having a tainted will is itself a sin.

On October 15, 2017, Christian apologist Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason uploaded a video to Youtube titled “Are We Morally Free Creatures?” In this video, Greg raises several key points that not just shoots his theology in the foot, it blows off both it’s legs.

Koukl’s video focuses on the issue of human beings “created” as they were (prone to be sinners) and humans born “fallen” (born sinners). If human beings are “fallen,” i.e. born with a predisposition to sin, how can we be held responsible for our sins?

Koukl said the following: “If the ability to always do what is right, one might argue, is a superior kind of freedom. Okay. Because it is the freedom from sinning. That’s the kind of freedom that God seems to have. He can do good, he always does good, he can never sin. That’s a good thing. In my view, at least, that’s the kind of moral we’ll have when we get into Heaven. When we see him, we shall be like him because we will see him as he is. And frankly, that’s the kind of moral freedom that I want. I don’t want this kind of moral freedom, when I could’ve done otherwise, I could sin. I want to be done with that.”

If that’s the better moral freedom, then why did this supposedly all-powerful all-knowing all-loving God not give us that kind of freedom in the first place instead of giving us the freedom to sin?

Also, if seeing God would make us be more like him and never sin again, then why not appear to humankind?

The Bible says that Adam and Eve, after they ate the forbidden fruit, they hid from God when we walked into the Garden, but when God told them to reveal themselves, why didn’t just “seeing” God purge them of any sinful will they gained from eating the forbidden fruit? The problem of sin and being “fallen” would have been wiped clean the nanosecond Adam and Eve gazed upon God walking into the garden, and a all-knowing being like God would know that, but didn’t help Adam and Eve.

The Bible says that Moses saw God face to face (Exodus 33:11), but that didn’t stop Moses from eventually killing people despite seeing God and knowing the commandment that murder being a sin.

The Parables of the Lost Sheep and the Prodigal Son demonstrate that God forgives us of our sins and He does everything He can (without taking away our free will) to keep us within His flock. Romans 1 demonstrates that God lets us live out our lives in the way we choose, which may be riddled with sin. Sin leads to pain and oftentimes, during our greatest times of pain and desperation, He throws us a lifeline. He works in the pits more than the pedestals.

“Keeping us within his flock”….. why would you wa—[sigh] ya know, I get a lot of criticism for my name (Wolf) from theists who associate my name with me being the “bad guy,” yet for some reason they are oblivious to the fact that shepherds herd sheep for one thing: to eventually kill and eat them. Yet, theists are more than happy to call themselves sheep. When we hear theists say “I’m a lamb of God” they might as well say “Oh Lord, round me up and kill me. Oh please kill me kill me, sharpen your teeth with my bones.” On the flip side, the wolf eventually becomes the shepherds best companion (i.e. “man’s best friend”) and the shepherd shares the lamb-meat with his hounds. Yet in the Christian mindset, it’s preferable to be a lamb than a wolf???

Romans 1 demonstrates that God lets us live out our lives in the way we choose“…. yeah. tell that to Job.

Tony’s scapegoating notion suggests that he fails to grasp the purpose of Jesus as the Passover Lamb who atoned for our sins. Hundreds of years prior to Jesus crucifixion, the prophet Isaiah foretold His crucifixion: “He Himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; (Isaiah 53:9) by His wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray (Isaiah 53:4, 5, 6) but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” – 1 Peter 2:24.

(1) Isaiah 53 isn’t about Jesus and (2) 1 Peter is a forgery — that isn’t an opinion, it’s scholarly accurate to point out 1 Peter is a forgery.

There is a class of books called by scholars pseudepigraphy (literally “false writing”) characterized by pseudonymity (“false name”) in which the author deliberately tries to present his writing as originating from someone else. We all know there are many religious writings outside the Jewish and Christian canon that are pseudepigraphical.

2 Peter is unanimously considered to be pseudonymous, with most scholars also lumping 1 Peter into the same category. Three other Pauline Epistles (Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians) are also considered by a majority of scholars to be pseudonymous. The Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus) are considered by a vast majority of critical scholars not to have been written by Paul. James and Jude are also generally considered to be pseudepigraphical works.

As for Isaiah 53…

Determining the subject

Tthe “the suffering servant” chapter in Isaiah 53 has been consistently misquoted by missionaries trying to claim that the prophet Isaiah is speaking of Jesus and fulfills the prophecies that “he would suffer for our sins.” They often site the fact that “the servant” is singular and must therefore be talking about a single individual – Jesus. Though a thorough analysis can not been given in this limited space, we will explore some important points.

First, one must read the entire book of Isaiah in context and from an accurate Jewish translation (such as an Artscroll/ Mesorah Publication Bible). It was written by Isaiah who was a prophet from 619-533 B.C.E. In the original text there were no chapters and breaks. The book was written in fluid format and therefore, must be read as a whole. When doing so, you will note that this chapter, which is known as the “Fourth Servant Song” actually begins in chapter 52 verse 13.

When reading Isaiah and other text, God often calls Israel and Jacob (another reference to Israel), His “servant” in both the singular and plural.

Examples:

But you, O Israel, My servant, Jacob, you whom I have chosen, offspring of Abraham who loved Me…and to whom I shall say: ‘You are my servant’ – I have chosen you and not rejected you.” (Isaiah 41:8-9)

Remember these things, Jacob and Israel, for you are My servant: I fashioned you to be My servant: Israel do not forget Me!” (Isaiah 44:21)

..for the sake of My servant Jacob and Israel, My chosen one: I have proclaimed you by name…” (Isaiah 45:4)

…You are my servant, Israel, in whom I take glory.” (Isaiah 49:3)

But as for you, do not fear My servant Jacob, the word of Hashem (G-d) and do not be afraid, Israel…” (Jeremiah 30:10)

A heritage for Israel, His (God’s) servant, for His kindness endures forever.” (Psalms Chapter 136:22)

Isaiah 53 Explained | Jews for Judaism

But Why Not Jesus?

Quiet often after hearing this correction, Christians typically end us asking, “why can’t Jesus fit?” They think “Maybe it does refer to Israel, but maybe it still refers to Jesus as well.” There are verses in Isaiah 53 that speak of how the servant was “pierced for our transgressions” and how God “laid on him the iniquity of us all”. Even more puzzling are the mentions of how the servant was “cut off from the land of the living” and “assigned a grave with the wicked.” Are these references characteristic of the nation of Israel?

As a matter of fact, they are! In Ezekiel 37:11-14 we read of a vision wherein the house of Israel is compared to dry bones and described specifically as “cut off”. Verses 12-14 speak metaphorically of the “graves” of Israel too, and how God will open them to deliver his people. The references to the bearing of inquity and punishment for transgressions can easily be understood when approached from the appropriate perspective of the Gentile kings from Isaiah 52:15. Throughout Isaiah 53, these kings and nations frequently remark on how badly they treated Israel, although Israel had done nothing to provoke them. The Gentiles then lament that Israel suffered at their hands, for their sins. We also find that Gentile nations had previously laid blame for their conquest of Israel on Israel itself, as Jeremiah 50:7 mentions that the enemies of Israel said, “We are not guilty, for they sinned against the Lord, their true pasture…”

While Israel fits the bill of Isaiah 53 with no problem, applying Jesus to the passage results in some pretty interesting theological difficulties. First of all, when Isaiah 53:5 states that, “he was crushed for our iniquities”, when exactly was Jesus ever crushed? If any of Jesus’ body was literally crushed so that his bones were broken, it would disqualify him from another so-called prophecy beloved by Christians – Psalm 34:20. Secondly, Isaiah 53:7 stresses twice that the servant kept quiet during persecution, and although Jesus does stay silent at most of his trial in Matthew, Mark and Luke, he definitely speaks up in the gospel of John, conversing both with the high priest and with Pilate.

Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days” -Isaiah 53:10

If the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is Jesus, how can verse ten apply to him? Jesus had no offspring, and his days were certainly not prolonged, as tradition has long stated that Christ died around the age of 30. Unless one simply ignores this problem or interprets verse ten as heavy on metaphor – which is not supported by the text – there is a real and insurmountable issue here. Another one is found with Isaiah 53:11, which says that, “by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many”. Even if you accept the footnote in NIV bibles that suggests an alternate translation of “by knowledge of him…”, this verse is still troublesome. Is it knowledge of Jesus that saves us, according to Christianity, or is it faith?

Lifting Isaiah 53 from the surrounding context and viewing it in a vacuum may help Christian apologists easily project Jesus onto the passage, but it is a total butchery of the text and creates far more problems than it pretends to solve. However, there’s still more to be said on the Christian distortion of Isaiah 53.

No Messiah Here

Messianic prophecies in the Hebrew scripture are typically marked with references to a king, the root or branch of Jesse, and associations with King David (Jeremiah 23:5, Isaiah 11:1-5). The passages also speak in a future tense, with terms of finality, such as “in the last days” (Isaiah 2:2, Hosea 3:4-5). If Isaiah 53 is about Jesus, whom Christians consider the Jewish messiah, why are there no indications of messianic prophecy in the chapter? There is mention of a shoot and a root in verse two, but the connection is never made to Jesse or to David. Even more intriguing is the fact that most of Isaiah 53 is in past tense.

Christians may read chapter 53 of Isaiah and note similarities to Jesus, without noticing how it ‘prophesies’ the servant in past tense. To modern believers, Jesus is in the past, but for the author of Isaiah 53, Jesus would have been a few hundred years into the future. What sort of prophecy uses past tense to predict a future event? Not all of Isaiah 53 is in the past though. The first nine verses describe the servant in past tense, and then verses 10-12 shift the tense to the future, speaking of how God will reward and deliver his servant. This is an important detail, because then Isaiah 53:1-9 are NOT prophecy – they simply set the stage for the prophecy in the last three verses of the chapter. Once again, this gives good support to the interpretation that Israel is the servant, as Isaiah 52 encourages Israel to have hope and chapter 53 then predicts their redemption.

It is also worth noting how vague the comments in Isaiah 53 actually are. There is only reference to suffering, not specifically to crucifixion. Nothing is said about Nazareth, Bethlehem, a virgin woman, or any of the identifiable characteristics of Jesus Christ in the bible. Isaiah 53:10 states that God made “[the servant’s] life a guilt offering” too, which is not an offering of atonement like a sin offering, but is the sacrifice made for restitution or compensation, such as when a person would steal, take a false oath, or extort another individual. This seems to fit nicely with the view that Israel, though innocent, was taken captive by the Gentiles, who mocked and abused God’s chosen. Thus to make Israel a guilt offering for the transgressions of the Gentiles would be far more appropriate than Jesus being a guilt offering that somehow redeems the sins of all mankind.

One way to answer the question of why the atonement was necessary is to consider free will. The sins of humanity are the result of God’s gift of free will, which underscores God’s generosity and love in giving such a gift as He knew the implications. He knew that by giving the gift of free will, He would also need to make a tremendous sacrifice to give the gift of eternal life, as free will in a world of temptations and challenges often leads to sin, which leads to death.

If God knew that by giving humans free will would lead to sin, then he wanted there to be sin. If a toy-maker makes a wind up toy to walk 10 feet and then places it on a 5 foot table and releases it, that’s not an accident. The toy-maker intended the toy to fall off the table.

If God knew that by giving humans free will would lead to sin, then why not show his “generosity and love” by making this “tremendous sacrifice” (which it was anything but) right after Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden?

“If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having” – C.S. Lewis.

If having free will is “the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness,” and Christians claim that their God is Love and is good, ergo logically God should have free-will. Otherwise, free-will is not a necessity to experience love or goodness.

And if God has free-will, then he can make evil possible. Yet Christian apologists argue that God cannot do evil (God cannot lie, he cannot do anything bad because it goes against his nature), which means that it is possible to possess free-will and never be capable of doing evil. If this is so, then why did God not create humans that way?

To provide a second answer, we need to direct our attention for a moment away from the payment to the LORD for the crime (i.e., sin) to focus on the crime itself. Jesus atoned for the sins of humanity. Sin is what binds and holds humanity hostage to the father of all sins, Satan. Prior to Jesus’ resurrection, mankind was imprisoned in death for its sins.

“Focus on the crime itself”….. which is what? A crime not of our choosing! A crime of being born.

A crime that, according to the theology selling the problem then selling the solution (how convenient), is a crime that was started when two naked humans were tricked into disobeying a rule by a creature that God himself created to be the most cunning animal ever (Genesis 3).

Consider earlier when I shared the story of Speedy the robot from Asimov’s “Runaround.” The scientists were the ones who built Speedy with a faulty program, which is why Speedy was unable to fulfill his mission. The moral of the story is that it was not Speedy’s fault for being programmed to fail. Yet in the twisted Christian worldview of blaming the victim to the Nth degree, only they can rationalize Speedy as the criminal deserving of punishment for a crime he didn’t commit.

And we didn’t commit the crime of creating ourselves with a sinful nature. If given the option, I would create myself with the free-will limited to only make good choices, thus never be even capable of doing wrong. Christians may argue that isn’t “freedom,” yet they praise their God “perfect” despite claiming God is “limited” to only doing good. Why argue for freedom like it’s a good thing if you’re going to praise and worship a being with all your heart that is limited to only doing good? That doesn’t make any sense, the Christian belief is more tangled than a Gordian knot.

“At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people” – Matthew 27: 51-53.

The moment Jesus died on the cross was the same moment in which holy people who had passed were freed from captivity, death, and Satan, and raised to eternal life.

The passage doesn’t say that the dead were given “eternal life,” it says they rose from their graves and literally walked in the city. — an event that is NEVER mentioned in ANY source in history.

Also, if we assume that this passage in Matthew were “rising from the graves” translates to “given eternal life,” and if Jesus’ “sacrifice” was the key to gaining eternal life… this is blown away the moment we remember Lazarus, the guy who was “raised from the grave” before Jesus was crucified. So put two and two together, if Lazarus raised from the grave (which means “given eternal life”) before Jesus was crucified, then there was absolutely no point or meaning in Jesus getting crucified in the first place since being crucified is evidently not necessary to receive eternal life. At which, this shows that God didn’t need a sacrificial lamb to begin with, he could have given eternal life to anyone at anytime for millenniums before Jesus. God’s like a twisted doctor with the cure for all diseases as he sits back and watches humans suffer numerous plagues for millennia before stepping in. If a doctor did that, they would be fired then arrested for negligent homicide.

Jesus had fulfilled the scriptures, such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, by overcoming the world and redeeming humanity from sins and death.

Neither of these are prophecies. I already explained Isaiah 53 earlier.

Fundamentalists have always claimed that the latter part of Psalm 22:16 “They pierced my hands and my feet” (which we shall designate as Psalm 22:16b) is a direct prophecy of the crucifixion; with the “piercing” referring to the nails going through Jesus’ hands and feet. Although this is not the reading found in the Hebrew Masoretic text, support is claimed from the readings found in a Dead Sea Scroll fragment and in ancient versions of the Bible such as the Septuagint and the Vulgate.

This claim is false, for a few reasons:

The Hebrew Text Behind the King James Version
Despite the claims of its accurate rendition of the original text, the Hebrew equivalent for “they pierced” was not found in the manuscripts available to the translators of the King James Version. Indeed the word rendered in those manuscripts means “like a lion”.

The Dead Sea Scrolls
The evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, is ambiguous at best. The word found there, kaaru, has no known meaning and may actually be meaningless.

Ancient Versions

A) Before looking at the readings of the ancient versions, it is important to know some preliminary background information about them first.

B) A careful analysis of the readings given in the ancient versions does not support “they pierced” as the correct translation. Indeed the analysis shows that there were two extant readings in the Hebrew text, one being kaari (like a lion) and the other kaaru. The very fact that translators did not translate the latter word consistently showed that even by that time, the meaning of that word was no longer known.

Use of Psalm 22:16b by the Early Christians
No early Christian writer, including the evangelists and Paul, until the time of Justin around the middle of the second century CE, made any explicit reference to the word “piercing” in Psalm 22:16b in relation to the crucifixion of Jesus although there were ample opportunities to do so.

A consideration of the various internal evidence favors “like a lion” as the correct rendering of the word found in Psalm 22:16b.

We can conclude with certainty that there is no reference to the crucifixion in Psalm 22:16b and with some probability that the correct reading there remains “like a lion”.

In summary, the atonement was complementary to the gift of free will. It was not simply a means by which early societies scapegoated God to absolve themselves of their sins.

“I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” – John 16:33

the atonement was complementary to the gift of free will“… screw the atonement, that’s like being offered a shoe when you have no legs.

Here is something that would be complementary to the “gift” of free will: incorruptibility. If the God character can have free-will and enjoy the comfort of incorruptibility, he could’ve given humanity the same safe-guard.

6. Argument on the coexistence of evil: “Observation tells us that evil exists as defined above. In this context, there can be no entity that has all three of those omnis and for evil to still exist. If an entity knows all about evil, has the power to stop it, and doesn’t, it isn’t benevolent, let alone omnibenevolent. If it’s omnibenevolent and omniscient and doesn’t, it can’t, thus it isn’t omnipotent. If it’s omnipotent and omnibenevolent and doesn’t, it’s ignorant. This exhausts the possibilities, and shows that no entity with all three attributes can co-exist with evil.”

Some skeptics justify their lack of belief in God with the assertion that evil exists. They make the monumental assumption that God’s goals are necessarily our goals. They question why God, who has the power to stop evil, doesn’t do so at times. They question human suffering stemming from tragedies such as the massacres in Manchester and Las Vegas and devastation from hurricanes in Texas, Puerto Rico, and Florida.

They make the monumental assumption that God’s goals are necessarily our goals“…

“So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand” – Isaiah 41:10

“The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and bring me safely into his heavenly kingdom.” – 2 Timothy 4:18

“But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one.” – 2 Thessalonians 3:3

Straight from the Word itself, it sounds like God’s life-goals and new year resolutions is to protect people, or at least the ones who like him. The Bible itself is where people receive the assumption that God wants to help and protect people… after all, where else are we supposedly supposed to get an inkling what God wants? The pastors and apologists? They are the ones who tell us that God is omnibenevolent and perfect.

So don’t blame atheists and non-Christians for having an “assumption” about the Christian God when Christians themselves make it clear that the assumption is justified: that the Christian God claims he will protect people, especially his followers.

And still, even the most faithful suffer, even more so then the secularists. According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report (2005) the most secular nations are also the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant mortality. Conversely, the 50 nations now ranked lowest in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Other analyses paint the same picture: The United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its level of religious literalism and opposition to evolutionary theory; it is also uniquely beleaguered by high rates of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, STD infection and infant mortality.

The same comparison holds true within the United States itself: Southern and Midwestern states, characterized by the highest levels of religious superstition and hostility to evolutionary theory, are especially plagued by the above indicators of societal dysfunction, while the comparatively secular states of the Northeast conform to European norms.

To understand this issue, we need to examine the purpose of good and evil. The world isn’t a perfect place because if it were, we could never grow the sorts of characteristics needed to be more consistent with the example of Jesus Christ. We’re here to grow and learn from our mistakes, because learning from our mistakes is what helps us to grow. We’re here to persevere through pain, to show empathy around those in need, to demonstrate faith when tested. In other words, we’re tested in all sorts of ways to grow characteristics like determination, faith, perseverance, empathy, and love. How could we ever truly understand love if we hadn’t experienced its counterpart? How could we ever develop hope if we never had anything for which to hope? How could we ever develop humility if we had never been humbled? So, the fact that the Lord has put us into a world with all of these yin and yang sorts of good and evil characteristics is to improve us and make us more like Jesus Christ, the pioneer and perfecter of faith.

The world isn’t a perfect place because if it were, we could never grow the sorts of characteristics needed to be more consistent with the example of Jesus Christ“….. Jesus lived without sin right? If the God character created humans to be incorruptible (just as Christians believe God is incorruptible), humanity would’ve been 100% like Jesus from the start.

How could we ever truly understand love if we hadn’t experienced its counterpart?“… Did Yahweh have to experience “hate” from another cosmic entity on par or more powerful than Yahweh until he learned what real love was? If not, and God always knew what love was, and there is no reason for him to experience hate, then there is no reason we should too. Hell, it would be smarter to make humans fully knowing what love is and only experience “hate” by watching it on a movie but never in real life.

How could we ever develop hope if we never had anything for which to hope?“…. use your imagination. How about playing a lottery game in Heaven, that’ll give you something to hope for, just to experience hope for hope’s sake.

How could we ever develop humility if we had never been humbled?“… isn’t God larger and greater than all humans? If so, his presence enough would make humans realize how low in importance they are.

7. Argument on free will: “The sceptic will argue that omniscience and free will are not compatible, because omniscience entails determinism.”

Determinism is the concept that God has preconceived of our lives, so skeptics argue that God cannot have omniscience while granting us free will if our lives have been predetermined. This is a complex concept to understand, so I’ve tried to slowly unpack the answer.

Oh this outta be good…

By understanding unbounded time, we can better understand God’s omniscience and the free will He has bestowed upon us. Omniscience means that God is all-knowing. Skeptics often conflate His knowledge with His control over us, thinking that for God to be all knowing, He must have control over our actions. He must have predetermined our lives. Alternatively, I suggest that the reason God knows our future is not because He’s controlled our future, but because He’s seen our future. Just as a journalist can skip through the pages of the newspapers in which she has published, moving back and forth in time, God can move back and forth in time. So, the real time that constrains us does not constrain Him. He sees our decisions and actions and knows whether we’ll be in the Lamb’s Book of Life, not because He’s predetermined our destiny, but because He has watched us as we exercise our free will through the lens of unbounded time. Furthermore, God is always in the present, yet He is unbounded by linear time so He is concurrently in our future and our past. According to Revelation 1:8, the Lord God “who is and who was and who always will be.”

To summarize: God knows all, he doesn’t control our lives, he just knows what’s going to happen.

Imagine you were walking down the road, and you come across a split in the road. You can go left or right, neither choice will make you get to your destination faster or more troublesome. If God thinks you’re going to make a left, but you end up making a right, then you surprised God and therefore God cannot be omniscient. But SJ believes God is omniscient. So when you make a right, God already knew before you went on your walk that you were going to make a right. If we trace this all the way back, God knew before he created the universe that billions of years later, that his creation will fail and billions and billions of people will live their lives and eventually end up in the worst torture chamber beyond human imagination. God could have stopped this or changed this before he turned on the lights in the universe, but he let it happen anyway.

So God may not “control us” every step of the way (even though the Bible says that God has used mind control on people many times), but he knew where we would end up in the after life. If a toy-maker winds up a toy and lets it go a few inches away from the edge of a table, the toy-maker may not “control” the toy as it moves, but the toy-maker nevertheless knew the toy would fall off the table and break. In the same respects, an omniscient being created humans with the plan to fall and then torture them. So in a way, yes the fate of billions and billions of humans were predetermined. God’s omniscience entails determinism not because he causes it to be, but because he has perfect future knowledge, thus the future is fixed, and no amount of human free-will can thus escape their predetermined fates.

C.S. Lewis described this concept this way: “Our life comes to us moment by moment. One moment disappears before the next comes along; and there is room for very little in each. That is what time is like. And of course you and I take it for granted that this time series – this arrangement of past, present, and future – is not simply the way life comes to us but the way things really exist…But many learned men do not agree with that. It was the theologians who first started the idea that some things are not in time at all: later the philosophers took it over: and now some scientists are doing the same. Almost certainly, God is not in time…If a million people are praying to Him at ten-thirty tonight, He need not listen to them all in that one little snippet which we call ten-thirty. Ten-thirty – and every other moment from the beginning of the world – is always present for Him.”

Almost certainly, God is not in time“…. then where is he?

I’ve heard Christian apologists and preachers on a soap box claim that God is “outside” of time or “transcends” time. The say the same thing about God being outside of space. Clearly, these people haven’t thought this through.

The proclaimed attributes of God being spaceless and timeless doesn’t make any sense. To say that God can exist spacelessly and timelessly seems to be the same as saying God can exist nowhere and never. If God created space-time of his own free will, then he must be capable of existing in the absence of space-time. That makes no sense to me. I don’t know what it means for something to exist in the absence of space-time, or at the very least some kind of an extension through some kind of dimension. But I am especially confused when by the idea that a conscious mind can exist without space-time. A conscious mind is always in motion, it’s always in flux. I don’t know how something that is completely static can be considered a conscious mind. Consciousness is a process, it’s an event. If God is timeless and some would also say changeless, then I don’t know what it would mean for a god to have a conscious mind. A changeless conscious mind is inconceivable to me. William Lane Craig said that matter and energy cannot exist timelessly like God can because matter and energy are never quiescent, matter and energy never stop changing and therefore they cannot be timeless. But as Theoretical Bullshit pointed out, a conscious mind is never quiescent either, and I cannot conceive of a conscious mind that is quiescent, that seems like a contradiction to me. I see no conceptual difference between a quiescent mind and a unconscious one. If the fact that matter and energy are never quiescent, that means that matter and energy cannot be timeless, then a conscious mind also cannot be timeless.

And one last thing, I want to address the Christian idea that their “timeless” nonsensical God created everything including time.

P1) God is defined as the arbiter of all things, including time;

P2) A decision requires transition from indifferences to will (requires time)

P3) Since time cannot exist prior to its existence, God cannot choose to create time;

P4) If God cannot choose to create time, he is not arbiter of all things;

P5) Therefore, a personal entity cannot be the ultimate arbiter of all things;

P6) Therefore, God as defined is internally inconsistent

C) Therefore, there is no God.

This is a difficult concept for some to grasp, but according to C.S. Lewis, it fits within Christianity. People may choose to ignore the concept, which is fine, yet it serves to understand several important aspects of God and the free will He has bestowed upon us.

This is a difficult concept for some to grasp, but according to C.S. Lewis, it fits within Christianity“… this pretty much means “this doesn’t make sense, but to a irrational guy, it makes sense.”

People may choose to ignore the concept“… I’m not ignoring it, I’m confronting it upfront and refuting it top to bottom.

 

And I’m not the only one confronting it, Tony did as well. Go read his blog here: http://www.hackenslash.co.uk/

Wolf out! *drops mic*

Leave a Reply

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