May 2012 - Therefore, God Exists

The Atheist Throwing Stones From A Glass House

May 31, 2012 by Richard Bushey Leave a Comment

There is a false separation within the non-believing community. That is the separation of “negative” atheism (the lack of belief in God) and agnosticism (the lack of belief in God). This is a reason that I find it so difficult to discuss these philosophical issues with people. Everybody is just so ignorant of the topics that they claim a strong bond with.

I would go as far as to say that the ‘New Atheist’ regime is one of cowardice, for it changes the definition of atheism that encyclopedia of philosophy maintains (the belief that God does not exist) to the rather sheepish position that they simply lack a belief in God. In doing so, all they have really done is retreat from atheism to agnosticism, while still bearing the atheism flag.

These people alter atheism in this way because the latter is a more defensible position. For one to say that they do not believe is easier than saying that they maintain that God does not exist. While a true modern atheist is rare, there are still defenders of this position, and this is the position that I would dissect in this article.

The Absence Of Evidence For God’s Existence Proves That God Does Not Exist

I have written about this topic before and deal with it very frequently. I have never heard a treatment of it that was intellectually persuasive. Even if there were no evidence of God’s existence, it would be positively irrational for us to conclude that therefore God does not exist.

Unless there exists an explicit contradiction between God’s existence, and the absence of empirical evidence for God’s existence, it follows that this argument collapses. But there just is no explicit contradiction between these two elements.

God could exist without providing evidence of his existence. There is no reason that he would be logically required to do so. Just imagine a possible world wherein God exists, and he did not provide any evidence of his existence. Unless there is a hidden premises proving that such a world could not exist, then we could currently be living in such a world. So long as that is even possible, this argument does not succeed. The absence of evidence is only evidence of absence when the existence of the thing being investigated would mandate evidence.

The existence of Santa Claus would mandate evidence of his existence. Santa would necessarily appear in the living room of every child on December 25th. But if Santa did not appear in the living room, it would follow necessarily that Santa did not exist. I would formulate this into an argument against Santa’s existence.

1 – If Santa exists, then, necessarily, he would appear in the living room of every child on December 25th.
2 – Santa did not appear in the living room on December 25th.
3 – Therefore, Santa does not exist.

This is an airtight argument, as Santa’s existence entails this evidence, and a lack of evidence entails Santa’s non-existence. In contrast, God’s existence does not entail evidence necessarily. So even if all of the arguments for God’s existence fail, we would not be justified in concluding that therefore, God does not exist.

God’s existence raises a greater question: who designed the designer?
An excerpt from my article, Who Designed The Designer?

I do find it so bizarre that the most widely championed book against the existence of God, (The God Delusion) is based on a central argument that is demonstrably fallacious. “Who designed the designer?!” demands biology professor Richard Dawkins. Even worse though, this was not merely dismissed as the ravings of a mad mad. It is echoed by every internet atheist that I encounter.

I might on another occasion dissect the reasoning behind the constant repeat of such poor philosophy. It may just be ignorance. But that is not the point of this article. The point is (and I am certain that it has been done numerous times in the past) answering Dawkins accusation, that the God hypothesis is insufficient in explaining the origin and design of the universe because it immediately raises another tough question, namely, ‘who designed the designer?’

I am confident that argument would be universally rejected if not for the atheism that it implies. We recognizes explanations all of the time, and we do so without asking the additional question of the explanation of the explanation. I will adopt Dawkins’ principle and apply it to something else in demonstration of this point.

If somebody crossed a field and found a pile of ashes, with Dawkins’ principle in mind, this person would be forced to concede that they are not justified in inferring fire as a cause of the ashes, because they do not know what caused the fire. Before they infer a fire, from ashes, they must, within Dawkins model, find an explanation of the explanation (find out what caused the fire.)

Alas, unlike Professor Dawkins, I submit that one would be amply justified in inferring a fire from a pile of ashes, even if they had no idea where the fire came from. The question of “what caused the fire?” can simply be left open for further inquiry. However it would be completely absurd to propose that this open question negates justification of the observation that fire is the best explanation for the ashes. This is the pitfall of Dawkins argument; he makes a most elementary mistake in asserting that you need an explanation, of the explanation, before recognizing an explanation as the best.

Similarly, the question, “but how do you explain the explanation?” in response to the Cosmological Argument fails to undermine the explanation, because you do not have to have an explanation of the explanation before recognizing that an explanation is the best. The question of the explanation of God can simply be left open for further inquiry. But upon further inquiry, what do we find? Well the argument which leads to this objection actually internally answers the question. As the cause of time, it is beyond time. In saying this, I mean that it is eternal.

Now that is not blindly saying that he is eternal to evade this objection, but it is a necessary consequence of the argument. So that objection does not work for two reasons. 1 – Before recognizing an explanation as the best, you do not have to have an explanation of the explanation. 2 – The explanation of the explanation is necessarily that it is eternal.

Finally, Richard Dawkins has offered this bad objection in response to The Teleological argument (the argument from the complexity of the universe). Dawkins explains that God as an explanation is more complex than the world that he is trying to explain, and therefore does not explain anything. Moreover, God would also fall victim to Ockham’s Razor (the principle that shaves away complex solutions). But that is simply out of ignorance. It confuses what is referred to as “complexity of structure” with “complexity of function”. The mind itself is remarkably simple, while the minds’ productions can be remarkably complex, and this is where Dawkins is confused.

So from neither God’s existence nor his level of complexity follows a need for another creator, and therefore the central argument of The God Delusion offers no grounds to doubt the existence of God. It is nothing more than a product of philosophical misunderstanding.

God possesses traits that conflict with each other.

God’s Perfection Conflicts With His Creation (Why would a perfect being need to create anything?)

God has created for the benefit of the creature. Creation, like salvation, is an expression of God’s grace. From this, it could very well follow that perfection actually entails creating. So long as this is even possible, it follows that these traits do not conflict.

God’s Transcendence Conflicts With His Omnipresence (How could a being that is beyond space be everywhere in space?)

Omnipresence does not entail necessarily that God is diffused through space as some sort of invisible gaseous entity. Instead it means that God is causally active everywhere in the universe.

God’s Mercy Conflicts With God’s Justice

This is actually precisely what the Bible tells us. God must give justice to the wicked. That is why Christ had to come. God offered a crossroad between mercy and justice, and has had it since the fall of man in Genesis.

So God is wholly just, and wholly merciful. In contrast, the Muslim conception of God falls victim to this contradiction. I invite you to read my article, Why I Am Not A Muslim

The Existence Of Evil Is Incompatible With The Existence Of God

I recently addressed the problem of evil and suffering briefly in a Bible Study session. It is actually trivially easy to refute. The problem of evil and suffering in the world may carry a lot of emotional weight. Nobody likes to see that, and one would think that a loving God would put an end to it.

However, the problem of evil does not carry much weight intellectually. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil and suffering, this argument fails. For this argument to succeed there would have to be some hidden premises that shows an explicit contradiction between God’s existence and the existence of suffering and evil. But there just is not one.

There are even times in the Bible that God has permitted suffering to an end that his followers did not understand at all. God reduced King David’s family from royalty to peasantry. Generations upon generations of worldly failure must have occurred, and it was within the will of God. They must have cursed the heavens, and they must have cried out to God. They may have even blamed themselves for the rapid degeneration that occurred in their family, and fallen into the clutches of depression.

Such failure is not indicative of our falling asunder of God’s will, nor does it suggest that God has abandoned us. That inexplicable things happen suggests that God is infinite, and we are finite. God knows everything, and we know very little. So when we fail, or when something does not align with our plans, we need to remember that the Creator of the cosmos and the Source of knowledge and truth might have a better plan than we do.

So there is no hidden premise which disassociates God’s existence with the existence of evil and suffering. Further, I would go as far as to say that the existence of evil proves that God exists.

1 – If objective moral values do not exist, God does not exist.
2 – Objective evil exists.
3 – Therefore objective moral values exist.
4 – Therefore, God exists.

While on the face of it, the problem of evil might seem to prove that God does not exist, it actually offers a hand in proving that God does exist.

Evolution Proves That God Does Not Exist

I offer this speech from Doctor William Lane Craig (also can be found in my Therefore God Exists section.

Genesis 1 permits all manners of interpretation and one is not necessarily committed to special creationism. Howard Vantille, a professor at a Christian school, writes, “Most of those in my acquaintance who are engaged in either scientific or biblical scholarship have concluded that the special creationist picture of the worlds’ formation is not a necessary component of Christian belief.”

Note well that this is not a retreat caused by modern science. Saint Augustine, in the 300′s wrote that the creation days needn’t be taken literally, nor need the creation be a few thousand years ago. He didn’t even envisage special acts of creation. He said that the world could have been made by God with certain potencies that unfolded through the progress of time. This was enunciated 1,500 years before macro-evolution was popularized, and therefore it is a position that is consistent with being a Christian.

Any doubts that I might have about the theory of evolution are not biblical but scientific. Namely, what the scenario envisages is just so fantastically improbable. John Barrow and Frank Tipler, two physicists from Oxford University, in their book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, lay out ten steps necessary to the course of human evolution. Each of these steps are so improbable, that before they would have occurred, the sun would have ceased to be main-sequence star and incinerated the earth. So it seems to me that if evolution did occur, it would have had to have been a miracle, and is therefore evidence for the existence of God.

I would go as far to say as the Christian has an advantage over the atheist here. As Alvin Plantinga points out, for the atheist, evolution is the only game in town. So he is stuck with it; no matter how fantastic the odds or how poor the evidence, he has no choice. But the Christian can be open to follow the evidence where it leads, and therefore can be more objective.”

So like the problem of evil, the argument from evolution not only neglects to prove that God does not exist, but also offers a hand in proving that God does exist.

The Falsification Principle
This is the principle which says that if something is not falsifiable, it can be taken as irrelevant or false. Many atheists will adhere to it in the name of pseudo-intellectualism.

The falsification principle has been abandoned by philosophers for nearly a century. The claim “A statement is false if it is not falsifiable,” is itself not falsifiable. So the falsification principle does not meet it’s own standard.

Further, there are statements that do not pass the Falsification Principle test, yet we would be obtuse to take as false. “I exist,” for example, cannot be falsified; it would be self-defeating to try to falsify it.

Finally, and critically, God passes the Falsification Principle test. If one could find traits in the nature of God which were contradictory, God would be falsified. So even if this principle were true, it would not apply to God.

Conclusion

There really is no good reason to think that atheism is true. Atheists demonstrate this fact effectively as the majority of modern atheists hide behind the agnosticism ideology (while maintaining the atheist title).

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Questions That One Atheist Could Not Answer

May 30, 2012 by Richard Bushey Leave a Comment

This writing is actually to a response that popular internet infidel; Rosa Rubicondior has offered in response to Doctor Peter Saunders blog post, titled, “20 Questions Atheists Struggle To Answer”. Rosa effectively demonstrates precisely what Doctor Saunders predicted. Atheists do struggle to answer these questions.

However I am not going to cover all twenty questions, for they are not all arguments that I would necessarily defend, and I do not want this to be excessively long.

While I am certain that if I dug into her responses to the other questions, I would find much intellectual inadequacy (based on the responses that I found here), but I will leave them for somebody else to dissect. I offer a response to seven bad objections.

Question One: What Is The Cause Of The Universe?
Rosa’s Response:

We do not know exactly what happened in the first 1*10-43 seconds of the life of the universe. This is the Planck length of time, in other words, the smallest unit of time which can exists so it is, in effect, unexaminable by science. Stephen Hawkings, in The Grand Design goes into this question at some length and concludes unequivocally that gravity alone is sufficient to explain it and that there is no evidence for a supernatural involvement.

Given that, at the quantum level, there is no such thing as nothing and everything is subject to unbounded fluctuation, this initial Planck length of time probably does not need to be explained in terms other than an unbounded quantum fluctuation. At the moment of it’s nascences, the universe was already 10-43 seconds old and this time is sufficient for gravity to separate from the other three forms of energy, so allowing a hyperinflation in which energy can be created with reduced entropy so obeying the Laws of Thermodynamics. Science has developed very accurate mathematical models of the Big Bang following this initial 10-43 seconds and observation has confirmed these models to a remarkably high degree of accuracy.

This is a very strange response, for it does not attempt to answer the question at all. The question is, “What is the cause of the universe?” But instead of tackling that question, Rosa answers, “what is the material cause of the formation of the universe?”

Rosa answered a question that was not posed. But to the question that was posed, she replied that she does not know. This response is inadequate, and I will explain with an excerpt from my article, Enlightened Ignorance

“I have noticed that this position of enlightened ignorance seems to have developed into the internet atheists’ catch phrase when discussing a cause of the universe. I do not mean to speak for them, but I believe that they claim ignorance because they believe that it is superior to claiming a false solution.

I yield that much. Ignorance is much better than claiming a false solution. For instance, if you asked two people, “Why is the grass green?” one replied “I don’t know,” and the other replied, “Well, every night hundreds of painters flood the streets with bottles of spray paint.”

It could not be more clear that in this situation, “I don’t know” is superior to an unfounded claim. However, “I don’t know” is only superior to an unfounded claim. In contrast, the theist argument from the cause of the universe is one of deduction.

1 – Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2 – The universe began to exist.
3 – Therefore, the universe has a cause.

From this, all we need to do is unpack what it means to be a cause of the universe. Being the cause of literal space, and time, it must be beyond space, and time. It must be timeless, and spaceless. It must have unfathomable power and intelligence. Moreover, it must be personal, as it made the decision to bring the universe into existence, and decisions only come from minds.

(Do you have objections to this argument? I probably cover them here. Objections To The Kalam Cosmological Argument)

So Rosa’s objection to the claim that atheists’ struggle to answer this question is not founded on any intellectual basis (at least not in this writing). However at the end of the writing, she offers three questions meant for Doctor Saunders. I will be so bold as to answer in his absence.

Were you unaware of the work of Hawkins, Krauss, and Stenger?
No.

If not unaware, in what way are their explanations unsatisfactory?
They attempt explain the material cause of the universe (the stuff out of which the universe is made) but not the efficient cause of the universe (the cause that brought the universe into being).

In the absence of a scientific answer to this question, how exactly do you conclude that the only alternative is that the Christian god caused the universe to exist?
It is not that a scientific answer is absent; it is a matter of deduction. From the argument that I presented, we are justified in deducing the existence of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, personal Creator of the universe. However this argument does not aim to demonstrate that the Christian God exists; just that God exists.

Update: See Rosa’s Response

Question Two: What Explains The Fine-Tuning Of The Universe?
Rosa’s Response:

The universe is not fine tuned as Victor J. Stenger has shown in The Fallacy of Fine Tuning

Oh yeah? Well John Barrow and Frank Tipler demonstrated that the universe is fine tuned in their book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. I hope it is seen that vaguely referencing the work of a physicist does not replace valid argumentation. But she again poses three questions, which I will answer.

Were you unaware of Stenger’s work debunking the ‘fine tuning’ fallacy?
No.

If not, in what way exactly is Stenger wrong?

Doctor Stenger’s refutation is predicated upon the fact that the anthropic constants allow for carbon based life, but, he explains, it is possible that there are other life forms in the universe. This response to the argument is strange, for it does not attempt to refute it. Doctor Stenger instead has found a clever way to side-step it.

The teleological argument for design does not claim absolute certainty of design. Rather, it claims that design is more plausibly true than the other solutions to this problem. But Doctor Stenger claims that his point about carbon based life not being the only possible life raises the possibility that the anthropic constants allow life by chance. He writes, and I am now paraphrasing, “the only reason that we think carbon based life is the only possible life in the universe is because we are, ourselves, carbon based life.”

From this, I accuse Doctor Stenger of the Genetic Fallacy. That is to say that you cannot refute a position by indicating the origins of that position. I offer an illustration: if I learned that the earth was round by reading a comic book, then obviously my source of inference is not good. But that does not allow me to conclude that therefore the earth is not round. Similarly, if our source of inference for believing that carbon based life is the only life is not a reliable source of inference, that does not allow us to conclude that therefore, that fact is false.

So an intelligent person would ask, from this, “why should I believe that there is more than carbon based life?” But this response is essentially what Doctor Stenger’s refutation amounts to. The universe is very large, and therefore the probability is high that there is more life than carbon based life.

Essentially, this mans’ refutation is of no greater value than that of the typical internet infidel, for he merely appeals to chance, and this is fallacious. I offer an excerpt from my article, Bad Objections To The Teleological Argument

That there is a statistical certainty or even a high probability is an untrue statement; the amount of planets in the universe is a finite number. Further, to say that the large amount of planets raises the possibility of ours permitting life is manifestly fallacious. The sentient life permitting possibility is independent of any other planet.

I think a metaphor will make this clearer. Imagine that I am rolling a dye, and my goal to roll a five. Even if I rolled twenty consecutive times prior to this particular roll, and never got a five, the probability that I will roll a five this time remains one in six. It is independent of other rolls. Similarly, even if 100,000 planets do not permit sentient life, that would not make the 100,001st planet more likely to permit life.

Why is there no possible natural explanation for the ‘fine tuned’ parameters to which you alludes?

Well there are three options, namely, physical necessity, chance, and design. We have seen that chance is eliminated as overwhelmingly less probable. What about physical necessity? Well contemporary physics has indicated that the anthropic constants are not unified; these constants exist independently of each other and the laws of nature. Therefore they cannot be due to physical necessity.

Question Three: Why Is The Universe Rational?
Rosa’s Response

In the alleged 40 years of asking this question one might have expected you to have formulated it in such a way as to make it look more like a question designed to elicit truth rather than to score points. Never-the-less, I’ll try to answer what I think you mean although you could equally have asked why water is wet.

The universe appears amenable to reason to humans because the human brain has evolved to be good at pattern recognition, so we look for explanation in terms of cause and effect because that’s what experience tells us is the best way to explain things. In pursuit of this aim we have developed science which is a methodology for examining evidence and seeking to explain it in understandable ways by developing theories then testing those theories against observation and experiments designed to show which of several competing theories is the best explanation. Hence, the universe appears rational because we have rationalized it.

Notice what this response amounts to; notice the literal bottom line. “The universe appears to be rational because we have rationalized it.” Rosa contends that carbon based life forms who exist by an infinitesimally small chance, atop an equally infinitesimally small speck of dust called planet earth, have altered the universe. It is rational, she writes, because we make it rational. This is obviously absurd. The universe does not acquire rationality, just because I happen to insist upon it.

This is not an issue of our seeking a relative rational pattern and eventually discovering it. Rather, it is an issue of our dependency on the universe’s rationality. If the universe were not rational, we would not be able to learn anything about it. An illustration will help. Einstein’s theory of relativity is dependent upon the speed of light remaining unchanging , despite that this is not a provable fact; just an assumption of rationality which science relies upon.

So, the universe is not rational, relative to humanity, as Rosa seems to be saying. Instead, the universe is rational, independently of humanity.

Rosa’s Question:

Would you expect the universe to be irrational? If so, why?
It is not that one would expect it to be irrational. It is that if God exists, the universe’s rationality is something that we would expect. While if God did not exist, there would be no reason at all for us to expect that the universe was rational.

Questions Four And Five: How Did DNA and amino acids arise/ Where did the genetic code come from?
Rosa’s Response

(4) The basic principles of chemical reactions have been known for some considerable time. There is no mystery in the molecular structure of DNA or amino acids and no reason to invoke magic in any explanation of how inter-atomic bonds occur. Any intermediate level text book on organic chemistry will contain detailed explanations of the various types of chemical bonds which are involved in molecule formation.

(5) An evolutionary process, which is the inevitable result of imperfect replication in a selective environment. The first replicators are unknown but various theories exist to explain them. We may never know for certain which is the correct explanation simply because it is impossible to create all possible environments under laboratory conditions. This seems to be a major worry for religions but it matters not one jot to science. We know a replicator of some sort arose because we can see it’s descendants. The precise nature of it is merely of academic interest. It’s rather like not being convinced that raindrops started higher up because we can’t say for certain precisely where.

Whether the first replicators were autocatalytic RNA molecules or inorganic molecules such as silicates is a matter for speculation but RNA probably became involved at an early stage. Quite simply, as a basic understanding of evolution should tell you, replicators better able to exploit the resources in their environment in order to produce more copies than their rivals will be more successful and will come to predominate. Quite simply, the ‘genetic code’, which is possibly the only code possible, evolved.

Rosa is evidently a scientist of sorts, so this response is a little surprising, for it is a bit of an abuse of science. In claiming that DNA evolved, she may be correct. But the only lineage of DNA is RNA, which is what is contained in what evolutionists will claim was the first life (the one celled amoeba).

It has been written by Professor Richard Dawkins that RNA contains as much information as 1,000 encyclopedias. An encyclopedia, (much less, 1,000) could not be the product of blind nature. Such a statement would be tantamount to suggesting that a box of spilled Alphabet cereal formed an ingenious treatment of philosophy.

Information and messages come only from minds. So this is not a gap in scientific knowledge being filled by God. Rather it is the deduction of a personal mind who has interacted with the world.

Question Six: On what basis can be make moral judgments?
Rosa’s Response
As an evolving, intelligent, social ape, the ability to work together as a team was essential. Those groups which evolved a memetic basis for behaviour towards one another and who cared for one another would have been the more successful groups and so would have succeeded where others failed.

As a physician, I would be astounded if you were unaware of the concept of empathy and, as a Christian, I would be astonished if you unaware of the idea of treating others as you would wish to be treated, which probably marks more than most the influence of Humanism on an otherwise inhumane and brutal tribal law of the Middle Eastern nomadic goat-herders who codified their laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy in the book of Hebrew origin myths called the Old Testament.

Note well that this does not answer the question. She explained why it is that we work together on evolutionary biology. However, this does not offer any basis on which to make any moral judgment. It instead offers a system of relative morality, which the question would be echoed: on what basis can I judge anything as inhumane? Is there an objective moral standard on which to hold Leviticus, or is it just your opinion against some goat-herders’ opinion?

In demonstration of this point, I offer this excerpt from a writing of mine.

I can scarcely conceive of another sentient, intelligent life who would think it morally indifferent to molest little children. Yet humanity does. Our treatment of each other, our self-idolatry, and our inability to live together in peace is the most note-worthy accomplishment of humanities’ relatively short existence.

It is almost politically incorrect to support life, love, and equality. People are so petrified that they might face an inconvenience that they will allow doctors to murder their unborn children. I can certainly indicate the logical inadequacies of the pro-choice case. But morally, it is just a completely absurd notion to think that the fact of convenience would render a baby dispensable.

In every corner which we find convenience or desire, we see westerners flocking there. The dominate position of the United Kingdom is one of atheism, and the United States is following. Humanity is literally denying God, and after speaking with many of those who hold this position, I have concluded that they take this position for no real intellectual reason. It is often an offshoot of their strictly religious upbringing, or an opposition to moral accountability.

This self-indulgence is one of the worst varieties, for it invites many other forms of self-indulgence, such as abortion, doctor assisted suicide, and many other manifestations of secular morality that even atheists, such as Doctor Sam Harris have blatantly stated their opposition to.

They object to such a position because what is often described as secular morality can best be defined as ‘relative’ morality, which moves our society closer to the horror that is absolute freedom. If I deem an action a moral abomination, and another deems the same action morally indifferent, who is right? In the absence of an objective standard of morality to appeal to, neither of us is truly right. Therefore, no mans’ standard of morality can be objected to.

Whilst lost in this sociocultural relativism, we may find other implications that even the adherents of this worldview will not embrace. “Why do we exist?” The child will ask his father.

The answer which imposes itself is not exhilarating, but dark, and terrible. You are the accidental byproduct of nature. As an overgrown germ, your life has no intrinsic worth, nor do those within your kin. All of the value that you give them is illusory. They are overgrown germs, just as you are. They are just as worthless as you are.

In a relatively short time, you will perish. Your children will offer stories of you in an effort to recreate your personality. Alas, similar to a game of telephone, it will become more distorted as the generations pass. Eventually, recollections of your life will devolve in recollections of recollections of your life. A time will come wherein nobody will know that you ever existed.

One might reply that you affected the human race in a positive manner; that while your memory has faded into irrelevancy, your positivity carries on. But to this I can only reply that this will perish as well. Mankind’s extinction can be taken as a certainty. The sun will incinerate the earth and all of it’s inhabitants in a relatively short time. Any role you might have played; whether you fed hungry children in the continent of Africa, pulled an old man from a burning car, made your neighbor feel welcome, in the final analysis, renders completely irrelevant. Empty space will reign the universe, and all traces of your existence, your DNA, your studies, and your good works will be forever forgotten.

If the father is to be honest with his son, he would reply, “We exist to propagate DNA. There is no reason for our existence. All we face is death.”

So on atheism, there really is no basis on which to judge anything, including all of the sins of religious people, from sexual restriction, to suicide bombing, to the laws of Leviticus. Atheism affords Rosa no objective moral standard on which to make these judgments. She has to borrow from the theistic worldview to condemn it.

I offer my articles:
Good Without God?

Now, I am not going to list the corresponding questions that Rosa asks, because they all amount to the same thing, namely, the problem of evil.

I recently addressed the problem of evil and suffering briefly in a Bible Study session. It is actually trivially easy to refute. The problem of evil and suffering in the world may carry a lot of emotional weight. Nobody likes to see that, and one would think that a loving God would put an end to it.
However, the problem of evil does not carry much weight intellectually. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil and suffering, this argument fails. For this argument to succeed there would have to be some hidden premises that shows an explicit contradiction between God’s existence and the existence of suffering and evil. But there just is not one.

There are even times in the Bible that God has permitted suffering to an end that his followers did not understand at all. God reduced King David’s family from royalty to peasantry. Generations upon generations of worldly failure must have occurred, and it was within the will of God. They must have cursed the heavens, and they must have cried out to God. They may have even blamed themselves for the rapid degeneration that occurred in their family, and fallen into the clutches of depression.

Such failure is not indicative of our falling asunder of God’s will, nor does it suggest that God has abandoned us. That inexplicable things happen suggests that God is infinite, and we are finite. God knows everything, and we know very little. So when we fail, or when something does not align with our plans, we need to remember that the Creator of the cosmos and the Source of knowledge and truth might have a better plan than we do.

Question Seven: How do you account for the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances and the growth of early Christianity?
Rosa’s Response:

Wow! How to wrap three completely different questions up into one.

The first two of course can be easily answered. We don’t need to account for them; you do. Again there is the attempt to shift the burden which has started to become almost a signature technique and which raises serious questions of sincerity in my mind.

Given that the diverse accounts of the ‘empty tomb’ and the ‘resurrection’ in your only source are almost hilariously muddled and contradictory I suspect I understand your motive for trying to divest yourself of the burden of proof. There can surely be little doubt that the entire thing is mythical and was not witnessed by those who purported to be reporting it.

These are not completely different questions. They are historical facts surrounding the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The questioner is attempting to express that given these three facts, it is more plausibly true than any alternative that Jesus rose from the dead.

This response is very strange, for it mocks the question without really answering it.

The empty tomb was debated among Jews and early Christians. But that entails that the tomb was in fact empty. If it was not empty, the Jews would not have needed to offer alternative solutions. Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar and agnostic has spent his career attempting to explain away this fact.

As for the resurrection appearances, I offer this statement from atheist New Testament scholar, Gerd Ludemann. “That the disciples had experiences of Jesus, where he appeared to them as the risen Christ, can be taken as historically indisputable.”

To support the fact about the growth of early Christianity, I offer the argument from a solitary life by Doctor Frank Turek.

“He was born in an obscure village; the child of a peasant. He grew up in another village, where he worked in a carpenter shop until he was thirty. Then for three years, he was a preacher. He never wrote a book, he never held an office, he never had a family or owned a home, he never led an army, he never traveled 200 miles from where he lived and he never did any of the things that are usually required to achieve greatness. He had no credentials but himself.

He was only thirty-three when the tide of public opinion turned against him. His friends ran away, one denied him. He was turned over to his enemies and nailed to a cross between two thieves. While he was dying, the executioners gambled for his garments; the only property that he had on earth. When he was dead, he was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.

20 centuries have come and gone, and today, he is the central figure of the human race. All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever sailed, all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned, have not affected humanity as much as that one solitary life.

If there was no resurrection, how could this one life be so impactful? Is it just because a few pious Jews from Jerusalem inexplicably decided to chuck Judaism, and fabricate a resurrection story, so they could fulfill their dream of being beaten, tortured, and killed?

I don’t have enough faith to believe that.”

So Rosa’s foundation on which she objects to this inductive argument is not sound at all.

Conclusion
Rosa’s Closing Remarks

I’m willing to lay a small bet that you have the same version of the same religion as your parents. If so, you might like to ponder on the significance of that.

There just remains one final point: throughout these questions there is an implicit assumption that, if there is something science can’t explain, the only possible alternative explanation is the Christian god. Exactly the same false dichotomy fallacy is used by supporters of other gods and other religions.

Do you not feel embarrassed at needing to use this intellectually dishonest tactic which is no more an argument for your god than it is for any other and which relies entirely on the parochial ignorance of its targets to work? Why have you not presented a single scrap of evidence for your preferred god and explained why it can only be used in support of your god?

Do you not have any?

My parents do not have a religion. I came to faith by apologetics (I began to ask the question: could God really exist, and if so, has he revealed himself to humanity?). However, even if that were not the case, and I did come to faith by my parents’ religion, it would be fallacious to propose that therefore it was false (remember what I said earlier about the Genetic Fallacy).

As far as the ‘God Of The Gaps’ accusation is concerned: these arguments are simply not guilty of that. They only are when formulated into the version of them which Rosa has created and attacked. But none of my arguments are based on a lack of knowledge. They are deductions or inductions.

They are not only deductive arguments, but my case is a cumulative one. So I would begin at the cause of the universe (which offers monotheism), move through the teleological argument, the argument from DNA (which eliminates deism, leaving us with Christianity, Islam, and Judaism), the argument from a solitary life and from the resurrection (which gives us Christianity.)

In summary, there is a powerful cumulative case in favor of the truth of the Christian doctrine, and absolutely no argument against it. Nothing that Rosa has written is intellectually persuasive in the other direction.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Why I Am Not A Calvinist

May 24, 2012 by Richard Bushey Leave a Comment

I mean not to persecute those of the Calvinist faith. As far as I can tell, there is nothing within that compromises any necessary component of Christianity. So I would not categorize them as in opposition to the Bible, nor would I feel any great desire to convince a Calvinist to abandon their beliefs.

Rather, I write this in the interest of moving closer to the truth. There are some theological questions that may remain unanswered, that we can only speculate about or that will always be disputed. But I think it is important that we not dismiss every question as vain. So while the Calvinism ideology may not be detrimental, I think that it is still a question that should be answered, to the end of moving toward the truth.

There are good reasons, both philosophical and theological to believe that Calvinism is not true. Further, there are good reasons, both philosophical, and theological, to think that the negations, or complete opposites, of the five points of Calvinism are true. What are the five points of Calvinism?

(Taken from Wikipedia)

“Total depravity”: This doctrine, also called “total inability”, asserts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures. (The term “total” in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as possible.) This doctrine is derived from Augustine’s explanation of Original Sin.

“Unconditional election”: This doctrine asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God’s mercy alone. God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those He has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen. Those chosen receive salvation through Christ alone. Those not chosen receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God.

“Limited atonement”: Also called “particular redemption” or “definite atonement”, this doctrine asserts that Jesus’s substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its purpose and in what it accomplished. This implies that only the sins of the elect were atoned for by Jesus’s death. Calvinists do not believe, however, that the atonement is limited in its value or power, but rather that the atonement is limited in the sense that it is designed for some and not all. Hence, Calvinists hold that the atonement is sufficient for all and efficient for the elect. The doctrine is driven by the Calvinistic concept of the sovereignty of God in salvation and their understanding of the nature of the atonement.

“Irresistible grace”: This doctrine, also called “efficacious grace”, asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and, in God’s timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith. This means that when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved. The doctrine holds that this purposeful influence of God’s Holy Spirit cannot be resisted, but that the Holy Spirit, “graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ.”

“Perseverance of the saints”: Perseverance (or preservation) of the saints (the word “saints” is used to refer to all who are set apart by God, and not of those who are exceptionally holy, canonized, or in heaven). The doctrine asserts that since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return.

Philosophical Objections
On the face of it, these might seem to be firmly grounded doctrines. But, with this doctrine actually comes several philosophical questions that would defeat the existence of the Christian God.

Why is there suffering and evil in the world? As Christian students of philosophy, we know that a very brief answer to this is that God wanted human beings to come into him freely. We make bad choices, and therefore there is suffering and evil. However, absent that answer of free will, the existence of suffering and evil in the world become inexplicable.

If there is no free will as the Calvinists assure us, then there is no reason for the suffering and evil in the world. If there is no free will, this life and this physical world become inexplicable. God could just call everybody to him. But instead, he does not call everybody, and is to blame for those who suffer and die. In subtracting the answer of our free will, the question, “Why would a loving God allow suffering and evil?” succeeds.

How one Calvinist has replied was in saying that God gave Adam and Eve free will. They then became depraved and therefore, all of humanity maintained a depraved nature. The obvious problem with this is that it does not solve the problem of evil. If after Adam and Eve, God chose to rid us of our free will, then our continued sin becomes inexplicable.

Also, that God gave Adam and Eve the free will to choose and become depraved becomes inexplicable. Unless God wanted everybody to come into grace freely, of their own accord, then there is absolutely no reason that he would give Adam and Eve free will at all. I see no reason that God would change his mind after the first human beings sinned. In fact, I would go as far as to say that this doctrine renders God changing, and therefore imperfect.

So with Reformed Theology comes, inescapably a version of God that is imperfect. It also comes with a loving God that allows evil and suffering to absolutely no morally justifying end. I think this position is overwhelmingly vulnerable to atheist attacks and plausible philosophical objections.

Biblical Objections
Now, if Reformed Theology is an accurate interpretation of theology, then Christians are in a bit of trouble, for they must face the philosophical problems that I mentioned above. Fortunately, however, the Bible does not teach the five points of Calvinism. I will look at each point of Calvinism and reply to the respective verses.

1 – Total Depravity

Mark 7:21-23 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”

Romans 6:20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.

Romans 3:10-12 “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless there is no one who does good not even one.”

1 Corinthians 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

All of these verses raise a question, namely, “how can man come to God freely if he has such a flawed nature?” The Calvinist response is that they cannot, and therefore God must predestine them.

The obvious problem with this is that these verses do not support that answer. They support the question. They prove that the heart of man is evil, but not that man is predestined to be with God.

However, I concede that without the grace of God, we would be evil. But that grace is available to everybody. God desperately wants everybody to come into his love and his mercy, and there is just nothing in the Bible that says anything in opposition to that. In fact, there are scriptures in absolute support of this doctrine.

In Jeremiah 2, God pleads with the back-sliding Israel. If not that they have the free will to resist God, then this passage is inexplicable. The only answer is that they do have the free will to resist God.

In Revelations 3:20, Jesus said, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. Should any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come into him.” Jesus is knocking for every man. To this the Calvinist has replied that Jesus actually means that he is knocking on the church door, not on the heart of the sinner. But that is just not what the verse indicates. I did not take it out of context, and I simply invite anybody to read that passage. It demonstrates exactly what I suggest it does.

Now, I would take a look at some of the verses the Calvinists would say imply predestination. John 1:12-13. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

In contrast with my verse, (Revelations 3:20), this one was actually taken out of context. This verse does not speak of people being predestined. It speaks of them being reborn as children of God. Also, the verses that immediately precede it refute what the Calvinist is attempting to assert.

John 1:9-10 The one who is the true light, the one who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He came to the very world that he created, and they did not recognize him. He came to his own people, and they denied him.

This verse blatantly states that Jesus gives light to everybody, not those who he pre-elected.

2 – Unconditional Election

Ephesians 1:4-8 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us.

A verse such as this serves as evidence only under the presupposition of Reformed Theology. That is to say that there are other possible interpretations, aside from what the Calvinists assume. I have maintained that Paul meant that God predestined everybody to be his people. The case that Paul seems to make is that God loves us and therefore he adopts us.

Well, (hopefully) the Calvinist will likely agree that God loves everybody. (I reference you to my article titled Who Does God Love?) So because of God’s love, he adopts everybody. So long as this interpretation is even possible, it follows that this verse is not evidence of unconditional election. But there is absolutely no inconsistency with this interpretation and the Bible.

Romans 9:10-12 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad —in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”

I concede that this verse speaks of predestination. However, it does not speak of predestination of who will come into salvation. It predestines one son to serve another. This verse neglects to prove what the Calvinist maintain.

Romans 9:15 “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

Similarly, this verse is not speaking of mercy in an ultimate sense or mercy on the soul. This verse is speaking of physical, worldly mercy. So long as it is even possible that this interpretation is correct, it follows that this is not evidence of the accuracy of Reformed Theology.

3 – Limited Atonement

Matthew 26:28, Isaiah 53:12 and John 10:11 state that Jesus died for “many”. The Calvinist take this to mean that Jesus only died for those who come into his salvation. To this I would reply, well of course, that is true. Many will come into his salvation, and many will not. But this does not demonstrate that Jesus died for a limited amount of people. It instead demonstrates that he died for all who chose to come into his saving grace, which can effectively be described as “many”.

Matthew 25:32-33All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

This also does not prove that the Calvinist wish it to. It proves that some people will be sheep, and follow him. Some will be goats, and follow their own will. Those who followed him will be put on the right, and the others will be put on the left. So this verse is not evidence of limited atonement.

John 17:9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.

Jesus was praying for his followers. This does not prove that he only prayed for his followers. That would obviously be absurd. In one instance he prayed for the sinful Jerusalem.

Acts 20:28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

Ephesians 5:25-27 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

Well yes, he bought the church of God with his own blood. But this says absolutely nothing about who is able to come into the church of God.

This, I think, is the most biblically unsupported doctrine that Reformed Theology has offered.

4 – Irresistible Grace

Romans 9:16 So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither will it nor work for it.

I would definitely agree with that. We cannot work for God’s mercy, nor can we will it into existence. It is just part of God’s nature. However that does not mean that God unconditionally imposes it upon us. It just means that it is there for all to come in to. So long as it is even possible that this interpretation is accurate, it follows that this verse is not evidence of irresistible grace.

Philippians 2:12-13 where God is said to be the one working salvation in the individual. Well of course he is. We could not have salvation without God. That does not mean that God is unwillfully imposing it upon us.

John 1:12-13. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

I would have the same response to this that I did when it was offered as evidence of predestination.

This verse was actually taken out of context. It does not speak of people being predestined. It speaks of them being reborn as children of God. Also, the verses that immediately precede it refute what the Calvinist is attempting to assert.

John 1:9-10 The one who is the true light, the one who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He came to the very world that he created, and they did not recognize him. He came to his own people, and they denied him.

This verse blatantly states that Jesus gives light to everybody, not those who he pre-elected.

Acts 13:48 speaks of people being chosen for salvation. I yield that much. The Holy Spirit was upon them, however, it was by both their will to accept the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit itself, that they found salvation. This is confirmed by the verse the precedes it.

Acts 13:46 It was necessary that we preach the word of God to the Jews first. But they rejected it; they deemed themselves unworthy of eternal life. So we offer it now to the Gentiles.

5 – Perseverance Of The Saints

This is the fifth and final point of Calvinism. It seems to be a result of the other points, namely, unconditional election and predestination. This point states we cannot lose our salvation. If somebody does appear to lose their salvation, it is because they were never saved.

The problem with this is that is assumes both predestination and unconditional election, which I think I have demonstrated to be extra-biblical. So just upon that, this doctrine collapses. But I would still look at a few of the scriptures that allegedly support this doctrine.

John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment.

All these verses really do is describe the nature of our salvation. It does not say that we cannot lose our salvation, or that once a Christian, we are always a Christian. It only confirmed that if we endure until the end, we will not undergo judgment, and instead, we will receive everlasting life.

Conclusion
I think we have strong philosophical grounds for doubting the Calvinist system. Calvinism submits a version of God that changes, is imperfect, and allows evil and suffering to no end at all. So if the Bible were reflective of Calvinism, it would follow that the Christian God probably would not exist.

Fortunately, the Bible is not reflective of Calvinism. In fact, some and passages, as I pointed out, actually override a few of the points of Calvinism. Further, as I think I have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt, the scriptures used in favor of Calvinism do not sufficiently support this system. Most are either taken out of context, or only work when presupposing the Reformed Theology system. But I do not think that any of the points of this system are actually biblically justifiable.

So as non-denominational Christian, who is open to new doctrine and not confined by any tradition, I think that Calvinism is not a defensible doctrine.

Also, here is another article about Calvinism by theologian and philosopher, Doctor William Lane Craig. Click Here

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Qur’an History

May 18, 2012 by Richard Bushey Leave a Comment

Not at all. In fact there are elements of the Qur’an that fly directly in the face of history. For instance, the Qur’an says that Jesus was never crucified.

But to quote atheist New Testament scholar, Gerd Ludemann, “Jesus’ death, as a consequence of crucifixion is historically indisputable.”

Jesus died. If Jesus was God, then God died. How could God die?
I do not know anything about the New Testament.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Idol Worship

May 16, 2012 by Richard Bushey Leave a Comment

I would be nothing short of appalled to hear of a husband who did not care that his wife was unfaithful to him. There are men like this in the world; men who will call jealousy an illusion to the end of the fulfillment of their desires. The world is rather frightening in that way. We value absolute freedom over infant life; we value absolute freedom instead of a faithful marriage. As a society we are steering closer to the chaos that is absolute freedom.

I submit the obvious: without restrictions of freedom, we would have a lawless regime. The argument that we ought not be opposed to personal choice, self-refuting as it may be (being opposed to personal choice is a personal choice), can be applied to any number of evils, including doctor-assisted suicide. I fear for society, as it seems that people are favoring immorality and that which enhances their convenience and personal desire.

Personal choice should never soar over life nor should it take such precedence, because the argument of personal choice can be applied to almost any self-harming crime. We should have the freedom to pursue happiness, but not pursue that which is demonstrably harmful.

I think some of this harm is rooted in baseless associations such as that which align jealousy with negativity. Jealousy is indicative of love. I yield that sometimes people might misbehave as a result of jealousy, but jealousy itself is not a negative emotion. If a husband is not jealous that his wife is keeping secrets and acting in poor faith, he is not a loving husband.

Similarly, if God claimed to love us, then gazed in indifference when we turned to false idols, we would be justified in doubting God’s love. But God is jealous, and that is a good thing. If a husband does not care that his wife has betrayed him, then obviously, he does not have an interest in that relationship. If God were not jealous when we turned to false gods, then He would obviously not have much of an interest in His relationship with us.

God’s jealousy is a strong message that contains not immaturity or poor behavior, but love. God wants only that we love Him in return. Alas, we instead obey our natural desires and satisfy our instincts. We appease false gods that allow us to commit these atrocities. However I do think that there are other elements of our life wherein we will adhere to idol worship, many of which we are completely unaware of.

If we seek peace, love, or positivity in a finite being, such as a girlfriend or boyfriend, we need to acknowledge the limitations of that relationships. It is my opinion that to seek in them that which we ought to seek in God is a form of idol worship. In essence, we are relaying to God that He cannot meet our desires.

Those in a relationship need to be aware of and stand prepared to alter their priorities if necessary. If they favor their significant other over their relationship with God, they render God impotent. They will never find the peace that they seek, as they are allowing an incapable being to attempt to complete a task that the Creator of the universe must complete. Neglecting God will only lead to a life of sin, and a life of sin can never render peace, nor can the person that they commit these sins for.

It is nothing short of foolish to love created things rather than the Creator. It is nothing short of foolish to allow created things to attempt to fill a gap that the Creator intended for Himself. In God we can find peace, love, and joy. In everything else, we will find only yearning; only false satisfaction and a half full capacity for love.

It is probably positive for somebody to sit in the passenger seat of your car during a trip. But most will agree that it is negative if that person reaches over and grabs the wheel. Similarly, if you are following God, it is likely positive if somebody else follows God with you. However, if that person sways you from that divine path that God has laid out for you, then you may as well regard that person as demonic. To continue following them is similar to following the devil into death, solely because he appeases your immediate desires, rather than following God into eternal life.

I implore all Christians reading this. Look objectively. Could you be adhering to idol worship?

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Is Sacrifice Immoral?

May 16, 2012 by Richard Bushey Leave a Comment

It has been rumored that many who will ride the New Atheist train of logic wherever it leads them stand opposed to the story for Jesus for it endorses sacrificial principles. It occurs to me that such people refuse to distinguish between sacrifice and salvation by works.

Self-sacrifice is often found in association with salvation by works, I do yield that much. However, obviously, they are not one in the same. In demonstration of this I offer these definitions.

Salvation By Works: The concept that all people are measured in the afterlife solely by their deeds.
Sacrifice: Succumbing to death so that others might live.

While often found together, it was never the intention of God nor is it ordained in Christian theology that we sacrifice ourselves. Rather, Jesus said that there is no greater love we can express than giving our life for our friends. That is not to say that we ought to commit suicide or murder infidels. It is only to say that sacrifice in the proper context is a good thing.

Before any opposition swarms this last paragraph with preachings suggesting that ‘proper context’ is subjective, I would like to present the idea that the the difference between good and bad sacrifice might just be self-evident.

Petty Officer Michael Monsoor of the Navy Seals was standing on a rooftop in Baghdad, Iraq in 2006 with two of his comrades. The enemy was nigh. Evidence of this fact quickly became apparent as he saw a live grenade bounce onto the deck at his feet.

Monsoor saw a clear path of escape for himself. But for his brothers in arms, no such path presented itself. This man’s love for his fellow man handily overwhelmed his impulse to save himself. For this officer, the choice to throw himself on that grenade was no choice at all. He absorbed the explosion with his body and died less than hour later.

One of the survivors rightfully commented later that Monsoor looked death in the face and said, “You cannot take my brothers. I will go in their stead.”

This act was one of not evil. Sacrifice is not evil. It is only immoral in the wrong context, and the wrong context is self-evident.

Jesus’ sacrifice was similar to the officers, as He died for those He loved. In His death, we receive life. In Monsoor’s death, his friends kept their lives. In a salvation by works self-sacrifice, the perpetrator is allegedly rewarded, and others receive death. I think the difference is glaringly obvious. In one instance, the sacrifice is to benefit others. In the other, the sacrifice is to benefit the self and harm others.

To assert that sacrifice is immoral because some people use it to commit evil is similar to saying that the creation of a hammer is immoral because some people use them as a murder weapon. Sacrifice is a demonstrably moral concept. It is only regarded as immoral because it has been so widely abused and misrepresented.

Sacrificial principles did not poison the world. The world poisoned sacrificial principles.

To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Where Is God!?

May 16, 2012 by Richard Bushey Leave a Comment

I spoke recently with a Nigerian preacher. I told him that I have heard that there are a lot of miracle stories in Africa, and I wanted to know if he had ever witnessed one. Expecting maybe a vague reference to a friend of a friend of a friend, I was very surprised by his response.

He mentioned three miracle stories immediately, two of which were performed by him, and one he just witnessed. I have the understanding that he witnesses a miracle at least once every month, or perhaps even more frequently than that.

So I asked him, “Why do you think it is that Christians in Africa receive these blessings, while Christians in the United States do not?”

He replied, “we are thankful to God in everything that we do,” he explained. Now, the westerner might be indignant at this response. But I think this man had a decent point. We open our cabinet, and dinner is there. We turn a knob and water endlessly pours out. Our wells do not run dry.

But the wells in Africa do. This man told me a story of extensive prayers for food, and water, so that his family might survive. When confronted with the question, “How will we eat?” they simply put their faith in God that it will be provided for them.

Africans must rely much more on faith, and therefore it is plausible that they have much more faith than we do. We do not have faith that can move mountains. Our faith is not even the size of a mustard seed.

I lay comfortably in my bed, under a blanket, with a fan blowing on me. My stomach is not grumbling, I do not fear for my life, I am in good health, and the same could be said of my entire family.

Yet when the slightest thing goes wrong, our faith stirs.
“Where is God!?” we cry, as we stub our toe on the furniture.
“Where is God!?” we complain, as universities deny our application.
“Where is God!?” we screech, as we have to wait in line to use the bathroom.

I cannot speak for everybody. But certainly, there are elements of our lives, as westerners, that we take for granted. There are things that we do not rely on God for, and things that we do not thank God for.

Our faith is much weaker than theirs, because they need God, while we could forget about God for a week, and our bellies would still be overfull.

Our great miracle is in our technology and our advancement as a society. We put our trust in men, and therefore, it is the fruits of men that we receive, rather than the fruits of God.

To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Prochoice Abortion Is Incoherent

May 16, 2012 by Richard Bushey Leave a Comment

I have engaged in several discussions regarding abortion. I find it difficult to evade the emotional element of this topic, as many pro-choice and pro-life proponents alike cannot avoid that this is, at the core, an emotional issue. However I have attempted to leave emotions aside and consider this issue intellectually. I contend that in such a manner of consideration, the pro-life case stands firmly, and the pro-choice case collapses.

Upon dissection of this issue, I find recurring in it two basic, yet crucial questions. It is my opinion that the abortion issue is quite literally defined by them.

1. Do human beings have intrinsic moral worth?
2. Is the ‘unborn child’ a human being?

I define ‘intrinsic moral worth’ as in an of themselves, human beings have value. Even if saving the life of a human being offered potential harm, the ends would justify that because human beings are in themselves an end with extraordinary moral value.

The second question, I think, has been amply answered by modern science. To use names such as ‘embryo’ do not subtract from that it is, on conception, a biological human being who will eventually grow and become an adult member of the world.

Thus since it is a biological human being, it follows inescapably that it has the intrinsic moral value awarded to human beings. I cannot persuade myself that the matter of mere location, namely, inside or outside of the uterus would subtract from that. But in fact, this is what the opposition must demonstrate if they are to persuade a logical agent that they ought to be pro-choice.

However, it is my opinion that upon any philosophical examination, any answer that the opposition provides refutes itself. For choice cannot have more intrinsic value than the human being rendering that choice. Choice is contingent upon life, and therefore it is inescapable that a human life is by definition more valuable than choice.

Since a choice is clearly of less value than the life of the person making the choices, what foundation remains for us to say ‘however, it is of more value than the life of another person.’ What in the world makes us so arrogant as to make these claims? Are we truly so self-absorbed as to say that our amenities and luxuries are more important than the life of a human being?

There are two escape routes of the pro-choice proponent. They can deny that human beings have intrinsic moral value. However in doing so, they rid their personal choice of any intrinsic value, for if your life has no value, neither do the elements within. They can also deny the premise that a choice is of less value than a life. I find this not only logically incoherent for the reason that I outlined, but also, terrifyingly problematic. If we are to concede that choice does have more value than life, we must be open to accepting that logic in all scenarios, lest we are guilty of the Taxi Cab Fallacy. (The Taxi Cab Fallacy is an analogy. The taxi is the logic and/or method of thinking. We ride it to our destination, but refuse to ride the extent of the trip.) Thus, I propose this expansion of pro-choice logic.

I have the right to commit doctor-assisted suicide, because my life is of less intrinsic value than my personal choice.

1 – It is not empirically provable through the scientific method that doctor-assisted suicide is immoral. It is legislated against only because of Biblical standards. Therefore to legislate against it is a violation of church and state.
2 – Legalizing doctor-assisted suicide will be financially beneficial for this country. When a man is convicted of a crime, instead of accepting the time and costing the country thousands of dollars to incarcerate him, sometimes he may merely opt for the very cheap process of doctor-assisted suicide.
3 – Criminalizing doctor-assisted suicide is dangerous for society and the minds of the youth. People are forced to be subjected to the grim sight of a man hanging from a tree or a bathtub full of blood. In the legislation of this, we will become more civilized.
4 – Criminalizing doctor-assisted suicide adds unnecessary pain to the world. People who make the personal choice of committing suicide are forced to do so in a way that is often physically harmful
5 – Parenting will become easier, as children will no longer be forced to beat around the bush of their desire to die. They will not have to discreetly display cut marks on their arm. They can simply approach their parents with their personal choice.
6 – Criminalizing doctor-assisted suicide robs people of their personal choice and bodily freedom. People who do not want to live should not be forced to! Don’t like doctor-assisted suicide? Then don’t do it!
7 – People who are forced to stay alive are more likely to be burdens to society. That is not to say that all who stay alive will be burdens, but I think that most of them will not seek help. Their problems will be only expanded and they may harm others. Doctor-assisted suicide will prevent further harm, overall, in our world.

To abide the escape route ‘human beings have no intrinsic moral value therefore my personal choices have more value than human beings’ is incoherent. To concede that human beings have intrinsic moral value, our choices merely have more, is (aside from being incoherent) to open the door to doctor-assisted suicide.

If we are to be intellectually honest, there is no alternative to pro-life advocacy in the abortion issue.

To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Why Does Christianity Matter?

May 16, 2012 by Richard Bushey Leave a Comment

I spend so much time on the subject of philosophy and proving the existence of God that sometimes I forget the difference between the intellectual position of knowing that God exists and trusting in Jesus as the personal savior for myself and all of humanity. This is obviously a terrible mistake, as it negates the purpose of taking this intellectual position.

In James 2:19, it is written that even the demons believe that God exists, and they shudder in terror. So when we take this apologetic, defensive stance, it is often beneficial to remind yourself why you are taking this stance. Why is it so critical that we convince as many atheists and agnostics and Muslims and Jews that God exists, and that he incarnated himself in Jesus of Nazareth? It is beneficial to ask yourself: why does this intellectual position differ from other intellectual positions?

The answer to this question is obviously in the personal implications that correspond with the truth of the Christian doctrine. With this fact alone, this is much greater than a mere intellectual position. Doctor Frank Turek has an appropriate way of explaining this. He said that there is a difference between “belief that” and “belief in”.

Belief that means that we have the knowledge that God exists and that Christianity is true. Belief in means that we put our trust in the Savior; God of scriptures. ‘Belief that’ is good, and it is the area that I primarily work in. But it is easy to get stuck there and forget about belief in. The problem with this is that in the absence of ‘belief in’ to work towards, ‘belief that’ becomes pointless.

That is to say that to believe Jesus died and rose again is asymmetrical with fully putting your trust in Jesus. Well, you might ask, what is so great about putting your trust in Jesus? What is the point? Why work from belief that to belief in at all? Why not just go on my way and enjoy my life?

The answer is implicit in the truth of the Christian doctrine. If Christianity is true, it has a wonderful message for those who put their trust in the Savior. We are all criminals; impure and wretched in God’s sight. Since God is wholly righteous, He must give us justice for our atrocities. We all deserve justice, because nobody is without sin.

But God loved the sinner and humanity so much that he would not watch them perish. Instead, he became a man, Jesus of Nazarath. Jesus led a life of moral perfection; he was without sin. For this crime, the world hated him. They captured, beat, and tortured him to death.

When Jesus died, God’s wrath and justice was executed in him. He absorbed the punishment that we deserve for our sins. So despite that we are guilty, God will dismiss our case; we will avoid God’s punishment and avoid Hell, and instead, receive the gift of everlasting life.

So since Christianity is true, I cannot conceive of any reason that sufficiently justifies neglecting to jump from ‘belief that’ to ‘belief in’. Here we are: disgusting little worms on an infinitesimal speck of dust called planet earth. Yet who else, but the God of the universe loves each of us so much, that he became a man and perished so that we might live.

To summarize my answer to the question, “Why does it matter?” It matters because the God of the universe loves you. We would be obtuse to turn our back on the most simple plan of salvation that he has created for us.

If you are struggling with ‘belief that’ and intellectual skepticism, I recommend reading the gospels and learning about the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Ask yourself, could this really be true? If it is, it has wonderful implications for your life.

The Bible promises that if you call out to Jesus, he will come into you (Revelations 3:20).

Read: Luke 15. John 13:34. Matthew 9:9-14.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Why Do Christians Need Apologetics?

May 16, 2012 by Richard Bushey Leave a Comment

Our society is drifting further into the clutches of ignorance. More frequently, we hear inept statements such as “There is no truth!” or “All truth is relative!” and people are consumed by these logical fallacies for the reason that they are the very first philosophical treatments that they have heard. The army which represents reason is becoming vanishingly small.

Through college campuses, students are often taught post-modernism. They are taught that the historical figure that was Jesus of Nazarath never really existed. Despite that this view is on the very outskirts of contemporary scholarship, students have no response, because they have never heard a sophisticated treatment of these issues and thus are taken in by the secular world.

Churches and faithful youth are not at all immune to the persuasion of secular humanism. Rather, three of every four students are being persuaded by it because they have never heard a logical presentation of the truth of the Christian doctrine. That is to say that they have no idea why they believe that it is true. They believe that it is true only on the basis that somebody told them that it was true. Read my interview with a young fellow for a demonstration of this point.

Me: Why do you believe that Christianity is true?
Them: Because I have faith.
Me: Faith in what?
Them: God.
Me: But why do you believe that God exists?
Them: The Bible says so.
Me: But why do you believe that the Bible is true?
Them: Because I have faith.
Me: This is a textbook example of reasoning in a circle, and it is a literal logical fallacy. Faith does not make anything true. Muslims have faith in the Qur’an. Is the Qur’an true?
Them: No.
Me: Then we have established that faith does not make anything true. So apart from faith, why do you believe that the Bible is true?

I then referenced him to basic reading material on the truth of the Christian doctrine. But he had literally no answer to that question. The church is producing ignorant Christians to go out and take the world for Jesus. The problem is that when they are posed a simple question, they collapse.

When they get to college, they will find themselves in a hostile environment of interviews similar to the one above; but the difference is that the aim of the interviewer is not the strengthen their faith as was mine, but literally to abolish it completely. That is to say that professors target Christian students in an effort to secularize them. They are often successful.

Recently, I heard of a rather tough fellow; a marine of the United States military. This man was scarcely somebody that you would expect to see weeping at the alter. Yet that was where he was found. He offered a terrifying story that began with a phone call from his daughter who recently went to college.

“Dad,” she said, “I don’t think I believe in God anymore.”

This girl was not somebody who struggled with her faith throughout high school, nor was she ever on the fence. Rather, when she left for college, she claimed that she wanted to spread the word of Jesus. So obviously, this marine was taken aback by the phone call from his daughter. He got in his car and took the four hour journey, but alas, to no avail.

“My professor is a historian who graduated from Cornell,” the girl assured her father. “He knows that Jesus never really existed.”

I recently spoke to an abstract deist whose main objection to the Christian doctrine was that it did not permit her to refer to God as a female. This was literally the reason that she stopped being a Christian.

I spoke to a Richard Dawkins’ poster child who abandoned belief in God because, she explained, the God solution is no solution, rather, it raises a greater burden, namely, ‘who designed the designed?’.

I spoke to a Christian who converted to Islam. He explained, “Jesus is not God, and there is nothing historically that allows us to conclude that.”

Certainly, these and many other objections are not intellectually sound. But they are held so firmly now that even after a clear debunking, they maintain their position for what appears to be emotional reasoning.

All I can think is that if I had a twenty minute conversation with them before they gained an emotional attachment to their position, that perhaps I would have been able to abolish their doubt before it ever expanded.

While some may never return to Christ, there are many others that we can reach out to and abolish their doubt before it ever begins to expand. I look at the kids in my church in their early twenties and I wonder how equipped they are to face a cross-examination.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

«Older Posts

The Atheist Throwing Stones From A Glass House

Questions That One Atheist Could Not Answer

Why I Am Not A Calvinist

Qur’an History

Idol Worship

Is Sacrifice Immoral?

Where Is God!?

Prochoice Abortion Is Incoherent

Why Does Christianity Matter?

Why Do Christians Need Apologetics?

Primary Sidebar Widget Area

Share My Button

May 2012
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Jan				Jun »
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31