Jumping From Pillar to Post

Daniel Morgan just can't seem to keep his thoughts and arguments straight. I'll try to help out...

****

So far, I'll paraphrase the dialogue, skeptics bold, apologists italicized:

Fetuses/infants can be spared an eternal agony by committing a temporal murder/killing

Not necessarily, only the elect go to heaven, and there are some texts in the Bible that suggest that some babies/fetuses may not be elect

It would seem you are hard-pressed to show any verse that speaks of the fate of the unborn in the afterlife, since they cannot commit willful sin

Original sin taints all mankind, and we assume it taints from conception, not birth, nor at an arbitrary age "of accountability"

Original sin is an intrinsically flawed concept of justice/morality -- you cannot claim to justly hold one person accountable for actions committed completely beyond their control or influence by another

The logical basis is the idea of federal headship, or representation.

Now, if you feel I haven't fairly represented the dialogue, feel free to rewrite this.

****

i. No, Daniel, you're jumping from pillar to post.

ii. Notice that you *start* the argument by arguing that I would be had pressed to prove my point, *from the Bible.* Then notice that you *end* the argument by claiming that I would be hard pressed to prove my point, *from ethics.*

iii. The one is an internal critique, the other is external.

iv. There are two arguments going on here and you can't seem to sit still long enough to follow one of them through. Here's the state of the debate:

One argument [A1] is that Christians should murder infants since it ensures that they go to heaven. The response here is that they should not because, [1] it ensures no such thing, only the elect go to heaven and, if all infants who die in infancy were elect then, counterfactually, if they had not been killed they *still* would have entered glory. And, [2] Christians (indeed, anyone) does not have the right to murder. Now, this first argument can be directed at the Christian *internally.* That is, is the Christian inconsistent, or morally failing, given his system of thought, if he does not murder infants? My response here is to show that there is no *internal* inconsistency within Christian doctrine. That is, given what the Christians say about the world, man, and God's revelation, we *should not* murder infants to ensure they get to heaven. Therefore this fails as an internal critique against Christianity.

The second argument [A2] is different than the first. [A2] claims that despite what the Bible says, it is morally repugnant to think of children as coming into the world already defiled. This argument *does not* assume a biblical code of ethics but rather a non-biblical and humanistic code of ethics. This is an external critique. Whereas [A1] exonerates Christianity by appeal to its internal consistency, my approach to [A2] has been to show that [1] the arguments have not been valid, [2] the arguments beg the question, and [3]the arguments have no weight given the worldview of the one offering the argument, i.e., if his worldview were true he could not even make such an argument.

If I am correct on [A1] then the Christian should not murder infants. In Daniel is correct on [A2] the Christian should not murder infants (since Christianity would be false and therefore no one will be going to heaven). Thus the only way for Daniel to prove his *original* argument, i.e., that we should murder infants, is to meet me head on over at [A1]. Now, I can deal with [A2] and show that he cannot use it, but [A2] will not prove that we should murder children. [A2] is *only* external. Now, Daniel might think [A2] proves his original point but that is because he imposes his theory of ethics onto the Bible. For him to prove his original point, i.e., Christians should murder infants to ensure the enter glory he *must* engage in an internal critique. But he doesn't want to do this. Fine. But let's note that he has *failed* to prove his original point.

V. Why does it seem that I'd be hard pressed to prove my point from *the Bible* and then when he notes that I do prove it from *the Bible* he then says, "well, forget the Bible, original sin is a nasty idea?"

vi. Daniel is the one who wanted to get into flawed morality but then balks when I try to see if he can account for morality given his physicalism and view of man as a meat machine. If he has no absolute, perfect, universal standard of ethics then he cannot say what is *flawed* now can he? Daniel cannot say that a line is crooked if he doesn't have a picture of a straight line. Daniel cannot say that there are flaws on students math test if he does not have the perfect template by which all the answers are judged.

****

If you like. Suffice it to say that I do not have the time nor interest to use resources like this one to attempt to argue against original from an exegetical/theological standpoint, or this one, but they obviously exist.

****

But Danny *must* argue against this since this is the defense! I mean, look at the pillar-to-post mentality here. Above he says I'd be "hard pressed" to argue for original sin but when I do he says, "Well, I don't want to get into that." Then he hedges his bets by posting links, as if that is his rebuttal to my claim but since he doesn't claim allegiance to it then if I spend my time refuting it he'll just say, "But I didn't want to get into it, I just pointed out that critiques exist." But we already knew they existed, didn't we?

Now, I've claimed victory on this point and Daniel said I could if I'd like. Thus [A1] has been granted and therefore the Christian has no problem with the argument.

****

Not really. As I pointed out above, many things can be drawn from the Bible, and have been. That whole "interpretation" thing is where it all gets pretty fuzzy, like with "all mankind" including fetuses. As I said, other Christians and theologians would argue with you that "Adam's imputed unrighteousness" is irrelevant in the face of "the individual's own unrighteousness", and that the latter is the basis of God's judgment, because the former is just the intrinsic propensity of humans [as conscious moral agents] to keep eating the apple that brought the universe to its knees.

****

i. Again, the original debate was about post-natal INFANTS, not fetuses. Danny wants to move it to fetuses since he knows he has a problem proving the original argument. Daniel's whole point with bringing up fetuses is to claim that they might not be persons and, therefore, not part of "mankind." But this is an external argument. According to the Bible the unborn was considered a person.

ii. Notice that he brings up "interpretation" while also saying that he doesn't "have the time" to get into a "exegetical/theological debate." This is pillar-to-post mentality folks. Actually, its a bit underhanded. If we wants to get into interpretation then we can do so, but when I do he says, "you can have it, I'm not into debating exegetical/theological issues."

iii. He points out that original sin may be irrelevant to God's judgment! Well now we've shifted again! Has he admitted original sin but now wants to argue that people are not judged by it? Who knows. If I try to argue then will I get the response, "but I don't care about theology?" Who knows. Debating pillar-to-post atheists is a mind-numbing experience.

iv. Those "theologians" assume that the reatus culpae was not imputed. Furthermore, I've argued that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You can't deny Adam's imputed unrighteousness while wanting to grab hold of Christ's imputed righteousness!

v. The first sin was not simply "eating the fruit." It was a denial of God and his authoritative Word. Man determined what he would be metaphysically and how he would knew epistemologically and how he would behave ethically. It was an usurping of the Creator/creature distinction. Indeed, Adam and Eve would have sinned if they had *not* eaten the fruit but for reasons such as, say, they were watching calories. Therefore, if you admit that original sin was imputed then it could not have been just that they would keep eating the apple, nay, it was a God-hating and self-serving nature, dead to all things Spiritual, that was imputed. This type of person does not enter glory.

****

"Simply put, I didn't say, "oh yeah, you're right" and even if I did, it isn't whether I, non-theologian that I am, say it or not, now is it? It's whether the other theologians take you to task for inferring fetuses can be held to judgment by God for sins they "inherit".

****

There you go hiding behind "other theologians" again. Why don't *you* put your money where your mouth is. I've offered refutations of those "other theologians" but yet you keep posting them. You're like a child who thinks his blanket will protect him from the monsters. And, it does matter what *you* and *I* have to say and the matter since it is *you and *I* who are debating!

****

"I grant to you that it can be supported exegetically, hinging on specific interpretations where "fetus/infant" get "read in"...and I further admit that I really don't care if it can be supported or not, neither whether human sacrifice or slavery or anything else can be."

****

i. The question is the interpretation biblically sound and warranted.

ii. Get "read in???" What, you think "all men" just means "all people who have penises?" So why don't you tell me that all women go to heaven since only "men" sin?

iii. You can't play the part of the annoying fan in the bleachers, unless that's what you want to be, is it? If not, then *engage* in the interpretations and arguments. Don't just sit in the stands and yell "you stink, my grandma could hit better than you." If you think you're all that then step up to the plate and face the 100 mph fastball.

iv. You think that pureness can come from impure parents. Job 14:4 "Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!" Job 15:14 "14 "What is man, that he could be pure, or one born of woman, that he could be righteous?"

v. If you don't care if it can be supported then why ask me to support it? Pillar-to-post mentality at large. If you don't care then you've *lost* the debate. I present argument showing Christianity is consistent in denying that it should murder infants, and you let me have it. Thus [A1] has been established.

****

"Admission of defeat if you like, but I could waste my time in trying to trash the illogical doctrine of Augustine being extrapolated to the unborn using other scriptures, if I held them as authoritative, as this person has."

****

i. Notice that he now acts that he *could* engage in exegesis and theological debate if he so chooses to lower himself. He does a little study, finds out Augustine was involved, name dropps, and pretends to be learned on this subject. We all know, though, that he's not and so he covers his tracks by saying it's such a bothersome trifle to get involved with.

ii. He *could* use other scriptures and exegete them? But earlier he said, "I'm not an exegete, the pay stinks." Inconsistency is a mark of irrationality, irrationality is an effect of the fall.

****

"Thus, in the end, the direction of the conversation does leads back to our presuppositions. Call me a pud if you want, whatever. I am tired of using the Bible to argue the Bible, as if that matters."

****

i. It leads back to our presuppositions, you admit I'm presupposing the Bible, but you don't want to argue the Bible??? Boy, you're all over the map.

ii. You're afraid to deal with my presuppositions, but I'm not afraid of yours. That's usually what happens when you have the truth on your side.

****

"Consider that my arguments were invented in about 3 minutes' time. I will take the time to look up something on the web which is a little less hastily written for you in my response post."

****

i. It can't be because he's arguing from an illogical position, he just didn't have the time to put into putting forth a cogent argument, yeah, and I'm a pink elephant circling the earth. ;-)

ii. You offered a modus ponens, you don't need more than 30 seconds to write it out. It's simple, if p then q; p; therefore q. All you had to do was copy what you had for q.

iii. Notice his *a priori* commitment against my position. He's so sure that I'm wrong that, even though he's not put forth a good argument, he's going to go look up some "better ones" in a book.

****

"I think my premise isn't clear. I am attempting to say "what does morality evaluate?" not "what determines the morality of thoughts, choices, and actions?" I'm pointing out that morality, which to you = God's commands, always involve human actions, thoughts, and choices. Have I clarified?"

****

i. Morality does not = God's commands. God commands are moral though.

ii. People *use* moral notions *to* evaluate, but some impersonal moral imperatives that you've made up don't "evaluate" anything. People evaluate.

iii. If you're going to bring up the Bible then you must also add the concept of representation and covenant solidarity.

****

"Let's not get sidetracked onto physicalism. The laws of physics, chemistry, and biology certainly do determine our thoughts, choices, and actions. So? Do you disagree with this? Can you somehow think something, or act something out, that violates them? Using moral responsibility in a deterministic worldview is not illogical. Not when you consider that people are a product of the physical world and their social environment, and that enforcing rules falls into the latter camp, and that the social environment does indeed correct and train behaviors. I doubt you disagree that our environment shapes our choices and behaviors."

****

i. Let's not get into physicalism? But you said you wanted to deal with "presuppositions." Pillar-to-post, I tell ya.

ii. I will bring physicalism up, since you're offering a moral argument against original sin I want to know how morality is even possible given your worldview.

iii. I don't see how responsibility is cogent within a phsyicalist's determinative worldview.

iv. I know you talk about making society all nice n fluffy, but that's not what we're referring to when we talk about morality. All you have are the strongest enforcing their rules, if the pedophiles win the day then they'll be enforcing their rules.

v. It makes no sense to tell a zombie that he *should* not have killed that kid.

vi. If the laws of physics determined your thoughts, then why believe them and why believe that they are geared for truth? Evolution only requires that they're geared towards survival, not truth. Hear fellow physicalist Pat Churchland:

"Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive...Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost."

****
"Yeah and the Bible has a few other "concepts" that are just as ridiculous. How does one inherit "guilt"? Is it inside the atoms of your sperm? Is there some spirit magic, tainted with sin, that rides on the back of the sperm? I'm sorry, but the concept is silly."
****

i. But the point of my rebuttal was to show that your premise begged the question, not that Christianity wasn't "silly."

ii. By "inherit" I mean that we are born with our sinful condition because of our connection with Adam. Anyway, on this point I'm a trauducianist.

****
"Perhaps you missed it, but twice now, you've switched from arguing against original sin to arguing against materialism. Self-awareness is a part of our subjective individual experience, whether it can be objectively described, studied, whatever, using physics or not [whether it is an illusion or not]. Arguing that a fetus is self-aware is like arguing that a rat is. They have probably around the same mental capacities at some point in development."
****

i. Perhaps you missed it, but I was arguing against your external critique and attempting to show that you cannot raise a moral objection to my worldview since in your worldview universal, non-arbitrary, objective morality is not possible.

ii. You said consciousness was required for morality, I pointed out that consciousness doesn't exist on your worldview, unless it's redefined or eliminated, if so, it doesn't exist! :-) You're such a folk psychologist.

****

"Okay, my bad. I should have written it more carefully in those 20 seconds I was giving thought to each line. It doesn't seem such an egregious logical blunder though...I would have to say that one implies the other -- if you are not moral, can you be justly held to a moral standard?"

****

i. Well, it was an egregious logical blunder. You need to connect your conclusion to your premises. If your conclusion uses terms not used in your premises then you conclusion goes beyond your premises and hence it's a non-sequitur.

ii. I don't know what you mean by "if you're not moral you can't be held to a moral standard." Not-moral could mean, "immoral." Some people are "not moral" in this sense, but yet we hold them accountable. Or, do you mean by someone not being moral that, by nature, their not moral? Well then on physicalist assumptions where is your morality, between your toes? So, you're still confused here.

****

"Fine. Did the fetus eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Nope. Okay, then, it is sin-free."

****

And I pointed out that original sin is not talking about actual transgressions. Furthermore, I refuted the naive "eat fruit" argument.

****

"You can be held responsible by the state for something over which you are given custodial privelage. This only means you are held liable for your son's actions in repairing the consequences of those actions, but you can't have the morality of his action magically "imputed" to you, so that your son's wrong choice = your wrong choice. If your kid killed someone, they wouldn't put you in jail for it, would they?"

****

Thanks for admitting that the concept of representation is not an unfamiliar notion. Thus I think we've now defeated your external argument while at the same time buttressing my internal argument.

****

"Is materialism on trial, or "original sin"?"

****

Apropos your external argument: materialism. Furthermore, you're not arguing against original sin since you're failing to engage in exegesis. All you're doing is saying it's wrong based on your presuppositions. Well, you're a materialist and so if you're going to do that I'm going to attack materialism. I'll lay off if you want to engage in exegesis. This was I'll still prove you wrong but you wont have your worldview smashed. You choose.

****

"And "Adam" is a fictitious character in a creation myth. There is not only an absence of evidence for your Edenic paradise and 6,000 year old ancestor, but a plethora of evidence against the existence of both."

****

Doesn't matter internally. Externally, I know that's you opinion. So you believe we came from ape-like ancestors, big whoop.

"With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind...?" — Charles Darwin, Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881


****

"vi. Daniel cannot even account for morality.

What? First, is that at issue, here? Let's say he can't, or let's say that there is no morality at all. Does that make original sin "true"? Hardly."

****

It is an issue since you don't want to debate the Bible but want to bring an external moral complaint against original sin. If that's your approach then I'm going to take morality from you, beat you with your own stick, and send you home. So, it doesn't make original sin true, it defeats your argument against it, though.

Anyway, this is enough of this....

"A tiny minority"

John W. Loftus said:

“Steve, I never said philosophers don't discuss dualism. And there are still a small minority who defend it. [JP Moreland's substance dualism is simply laughed at].”

If he bothered to follow the links, he’d see that it’s discussed as a live option with heavy-duty philosophical patronage.

And whether it’s a “tiny” minority position depends, I guess, on your definition of minority and majority.

Also, is popularity a philosophical criterion?

Finally, according to David Chalmers:

***QUOTE***

Jaegwon Kim comes out

Jaegwon Kim's new book, Physicalism, or Something Near Enough, was recently published. This book is full of interesting arguments about the mind-body problem. But it is especially notable for the fact that Kim, often seen as an arch-reductionist, comes out of the closet as a dualist. In the last couple of pages of the book, he embraces epiphenomenalist property dualism about qualia, combined with functionalist reductionism about intentional states. The position is not too far from a view that is often attributed to The Conscious Mind, though as a matter of fact I'm much less confident about both the epiphenomenalism (about the phenomenal) and the functionalism (about the intentional) than Kim is. Here's a review of the book by Andrew Melnyk, and here's a sample chapter.

As the title suggests, Kim softpedals his debut as a dualist a little. Here's the last paragraph of the book:

“The position is, as we might say, a slightly defective physicalism -- physicalism manque but not by much. I believe that this is as much physicalism as we can have, and that there is no credible alternative to physicalism as a general worldview. Physicalism is not the whole truth, but it is the truth near enough, and near enough should be good enough.”

(As someone suggested, this calls to mind a counterfactual book called Straight, Or Something Near Enough. With subtitle: I Just Fool Around With Guys on Weekends. "The position is, as we might say, a slightly defective heterosexuality -- heterosexuality manque but not by much. Near enough should be good enough.")

Tone aside, this makes at least three prominent materialists who have abandoned the view in the last few years. Apart from Kim, there's Terry Horgan and Stephen White (balanced, of course, by Frank Jackson moving the other way). One still sometimes sees the claim that almost everyone these days is a materialist (e.g. in Peter Carruthers' new book, p. 5: "Just about everyone now working in this area is an ontological physicalist, with the exception of Chalmers (1996) and perhaps a few others"). I don't think one can get away with saying this any more. Apart from the four counterexamples just mentioned, here are a few other contemporary anti-materialists about consciousness who come quickly to mind: Joseph Almog, Torin Alter, George Bealer, Laurence BonJour, Paul Boghossian, Tyler Burge, Tim Crane, John Foster, Brie Gertler, George Graham, W.D. Hart, Ted Honderich, Steven Horst, Saul Kripke, Harold Langsam, E.J. Lowe, Kirk Ludwig, Trenton Merricks, Martine Nida-Rumelin, Adam Pautz, David Pitt, Alvin Plantinga, Howard Robinson, William Robinson, Gregg Rosenberg, A.D. Smith, and Richard Swinburne. There are plenty of others, and then at least as many again agnostics. If I had to guess, I'd guess that the numbers within philosophy of mind are 50% materialist, 25% agnostic, 25% dualist.

Of course, sociology isn't the important thing here. Philosophy is. So as philosophy, let me recommend Kim's book as a thoughtful and insightful treatment of the mind-body problem that's well worth reading.

http://fragments.consc.net/djc/2005/09/jaegwon_kim_com.html#trackback

***END-QUOTE***

Thirty years and counting

This month marks an anniversary. More than one. For one thing, my father died seven years ago this month.

For better or worse, the father/son relationship is a defining bond. The passing of a father is not something a son will ever get over or outgrow.

For many years you had that wall to lean against or push against.

And then it’s gone, as if the wall were blown out by a twister. Where the wall used to be is empty space. And it remains empty space.

As social creatures our identity is, in some measure, delineated by the shared surface of a few friends and family.

We are not entirely self-contained. Rather, we form mutual boundaries, with common walls.

Once that person is gone, the counter-pressure is gone. Your personality oozes out into the void.

As, one-by-one, death dismantles the walls of your ancestral home, it’s easy to lose self-definition. The center may remain, but you either retract into a core personality or diffuse into a fuzzy circumference.

To some extent, marriage and children raise up new retaining walls. But, of course, certain people are irreplaceable.

It was also around this time, 30 years ago, that the Lord called me out of darkness into his wonderful light.

Christians often speak of faith as strong or weak. Becoming stronger or weaker over the years.

There’s some value in isolating one’s faith in that detached fashion, as if it were an arm or a leg.

But the attempt to objectify one’s faith is also more than a bit artificial.

A Christian is not a person with faith, as if his faith were an ancillary belief or incidental property, like being a businessman or a football player. Rather, a Christian is a believer. He is not merely a person with a set of beliefs, not merely a man of faith—but one of the faithful.

His faith is his eyes and ears, heart and head. It’s not something he has, but something he is.

It is not our faith that changes, but we who change.

Looking back over my shoulder, I can’t say that my faith is any stronger or weaker than it was twenty years ago—or ten, or thirty. It’s been a very stable, effortless, unquestioning faith.

Of course, my faith is not my own. And every Christian has his own experience.

But if my faith is unchanged, I am not.

Like everyone else, I have changed, due to the inexorable seasons of life, along with the wear-and-tear of existence in a fallen world.

One might suppose the pilgrimage levels off after several years of strenuous ascent—that it hits a plateau, from which point one can coast for the remainder of the journey. Yet the way frequently grows steeper all the way to the end.

As Martyn Lloyd-Jones once said, this is:

“The danger of the middle period…it is something we all have to face sooner or later as we grow older…the most difficult period of all in life is the middle period. There are compensations in youth and there are compensations in old age which seem to be entirely lacking in this middle period,” Spiritual Depression (Eerdmans 1992), 192.

And yet the very exertion makes the muscles strong, so that it feels much the same, even if the incline is more acute.

As the body atrophies, the spirit amplifies. The outer man decays, but the inner man renews—like a butterfly—to spread his wings when the chrysalis at last is dead.

A newborn Christian may feel stronger because his body is vigorous, with the weightless, spring-action step of the young. And, in many cases, he has also suffered no irreparable loss to weigh him down.

And yet an older Christian may surmount challenges that would sink a younger Christian. He may be battle-weary, but he is battle-hardened.

And his way is lit with one opportune providence after another—an emerging pattern which we can only see in retrospect—often occurring when we need it the most, but expect it the least.

Not a steady light, but shooting stars to keep us from falling into the ditch.

“Sometimes a light surprises the Christian while he sings. It is the Lord, who rises with healing in his wings” (William Cowper).

My faith is much the same, but it’s differently situated. More internalized. Less on the outside, more on the inside.

A young believer has no spiritual experience, no past to look back on.

But for a Christian with a fair amount of mileage on the odometer of faith, we see the present through the filtered lens of the past, and the past through the filtered lens of the presence.

As T. S. Eliot said,

“Home is where one starts from. As we grow older
The world becomes stranger, the pattern more complicated
Of dead and living. Not the intense moment
Isolated, with no before and after,
But a lifetime burning in every moment.”

I’ve only been a believer for 30 years. My grandmother was a believer for over 80 years.

And just imagine the walk of faith for Methuselah!

There were precious few apologetic resources when I first became a Christian. Apologetics has exploded since the Seventies.

My answers are much better at 46 pushing 47 than they were at 16 pushing 17.

And yet, as the answers get better, they mean much less to me.

Or perhaps I should say, they mean less to me as answers to objections, and more to me as living truths.

A Christian can greet every day with expectation, for every day is a new adventure that God has planned from all eternity. Whatever the day may bring, it comes from the hand of God’s good providence.

Every day is a treasure hunt. Around every corner is a Valentine from God.

The experience may at times be painful, but these are growing pains. Even when we grieve, we grieve in hope of a better tomorrow.

As we age, ever more of our life lies either in the past or the future. Out of reach and out of touch.

But if tomorrow is bleak, eternity is bright. And the brightness of the destination casts a backward light to illumine the darkened path below.

Monism, dualism, & freewill

Calvinism denies freewill, right? Everyone knows that Calvinism denies freewill. If they know nothing else about Calvinism, they know that much. Indeed, there’s nothing else to know, is there? That’s all there is to Calvinism, right? The denial of freewill? Nothing less and nothing more.

Of course, it’s not that simple. Historically, the question swirls around the Calvinist/Arminian debate, which, in turn, goes back to the Pelagian controversy.

But there’s another way of approaching this question. And that is in terms of the debate between monism and dualism. By “monism” I mean materialism. By “dualism” I mean Cartesian dualism.

Daniel Dennett is a militant monist and archenemy of dualism. He likes to talk about the Cartesian theater. His criticism is actually aimed at what he calls Cartesian materialism, which he regards as a remnant of Cartesian dualism.

In the Cartesian theater, the soul plays the role of a homunculus who scans sensory input projected onto a big screen, makes decisions on the basis of this input, and directs the body to act accordingly.

It’s like the scene in Men in Black where what looks like a human body is really a space ship piloted by miniature alien. The skull is the “bridge, the eyes the view screen, and so on.

Because these illustrations are humorous, they are meant to ridicule the very idea of dualism.

But let’s give this a second thought. On the one hand, traditional Christian anthropology is, indeed, dualistic.

The soul is the seat of personality. The soul does, indeed, process information coming in from the senses. The soul does, indeed, direct the body to do certain things in response to this sensory input.

And this is the real basis of freewill. It isn’t the freedom to do otherwise. Rather, it’s a faculty for moral and rational deliberation.

Choice does not involve freedom of opportunity, for, as a practical matter, we can only make one choice at a time.

But it does demand an ability to entertain various alternatives, whichever of these bare possibilities turns out to be a live option.

Due to dualism, a person is a self-conscious being. He is able to objectify his own awareness. To see himself apart from his surroundings. He has a capacity for imagining hypothetical scenarios.

In physicalism, by contrast, such detachment is impossible. The brain is it. There is no antecedent observer to inspect the input and choose the best course of action.

Rather, mind and brain are identical, and the brain is governed by the laws of physics. The person cannot step outside of his brain. He can’t step away from his neuroprocessing center to review the input with critical detachment, or direct the body accordingly.

He doesn’t have a body. He is a body. So he can’t put any distance between his mind and his brain.

There’s nothing behind the eyes except a data processing machine, mindlessly registering external stimuli—like a security camera, voice-activated tape recorder, or seismograph.

In place of a homunculus we have a zombie. If physicalism is true, then moral or rational deliberation is illusory.

Is this the God I worship?

John W. Loftus said:

“Steve, this is the God YOU worship?”

Yes, this is the God I worship.

The basic point of disagreement between you and me is not over surface phenomena.

No, it runs much deeper. You and I are not on the same wavelength.

Most of the time I suppose I sound a lot like an evidentialist. That’s because most of the time it’s sufficient for me to answer the unbeliever on his own shallow grounds.

I never need to play my high cards. I can keep my deeper reasons to myself.

But really, John, you might as well be a Martian for all we have in common.

You keep acting as if my faith were optional. As if I go to bed a believer, never knowing if I’ll wake up an unbeliever.

As if I get out of bed every morning, open my Christian safe, and peer inside to see if my faith is still there.

You act as if I need to review the state of the evidence every day before breakfast to see if the scales have tipped the other way while I slept—if a piece of Christian evidence was removed from one side of the scales or a piece of anti-Christian evidence was added to the other side of the scales.

Now, this balancing act can be relevant in terms of weighing the options within Christianity. Should I be Catholic or Protestant? Lutheran or Baptist.

But it’s not what makes a Christian qua Christian tick.

It may seem that way to you because you lost your faith.

And you may say it could happen to me. Well, that’s a hypothetical that can’t be verified or falsified at this juncture, now can it?

I can only speak from my theology and my experience. From a lived-in theology.

You’re like a man who steps into a painting and then denies the existence of the painter because you can’t find the painter in the painting.

From within the painting, you can’t see anything outside the painting.

I’m like a man who steps into a painting and cannot deny the existence of the painter since he is evident in every brushstroke.

You only see absence. You see everything except the painter, so you conclude that the painter does not exist.

I don’t need to see the painter when I have the painting.

What is more, the painter painted himself into his own painting 2000 years ago.

God is hidden in plain sight. But we become insensible to God the way we become insensible to airplanes and barking dogs—not because it’s all so elusive, but because it’s so all-pervasive. There’s nothing to contrast it with when it is all around us and within us.

“He damns me for his glory?”

As Gene and I have each explained, this is simplistic.

“Can you step back from this and see this belief for what it really is? A God like that isn't worthy of worship.”

According to you, an atheist.

“A God like that makes atheists out of those of us who see it for what it really is.”

Yes, that’s true. There are nominal Christians who see God through a tinted window, but when the tinted window is replaced with a clear pane of glass, and they see who God actually is for the very first time, then they turn their back on God.

Truth is either a unitive force and a divisive force. Some men are drawn to the light while others are blinded by the light and prefer to live as creatures of the night.

You have a way of turning truth-claims into a bluff: “I dare you to tell me that this is what God is really like, for if, indeed, that’s what God is really like, then I refuse to believe in a God like that!”

What makes you think that I’m bothered by that consequence? You’re the one who suffers the consequence, not me.

In Calvinism, the gospel is intended to have that affect on the reprobate. It’s intended to drive them away from God (Jn 9:39)—not because God is bad and they are good, but because they are bad and God is good (Jn 3:19-20).

It’s really rather childish of you to suppose that we should cut and tailor our theology under the standing threat that unless we redesign the creed to meet your personal specifications, you will take your business elsewhere.

There’s no correlation between what you like and what God is like. That’s not how existential truths operate.

A God who’s made to order according to your personal specifications is a make-believe God, an imaginary deity.

“But who are we to answer back to God, you'll say. You explain everything...and nothing.”

Actually, that’s not the answer I’ve given.

That’s the answer Paul gave to a hypothetical Jewish opponent. He’s answering his opponent on his own grounds. His opponent believes in God as well as the Scriptures.

Is this a persuasive answer for someone who doesn’t believe in God or God’s revelation in Scripture? No. But that was not the target audience.

And it’s a perfectly good answer in its own right. If there is a God, and he has the attributes of the Biblical God, then he does indeed know better than I what is for the best.

But that’s not the only answer Paul gave, and it’s not the answer I gave in the course of this discussion.

“Now tell me this Steve, does God also make me desire to reject him so that I will go to hell? Where exactly is this thing called secondary causation?”

Gene gave a good answer.

“And what do you think of the ethical principle of the means justifying the ends? I'll suppose you reject it. Yet, your God does this with us.”

This is simplistic. Does any end justify any means whatsoever? No. Does the end never justify the means? No. We need to avoid two extremes.

I don’t regard teleological ethics as the sum of ethics, but teleological considerations are a necessary, if insufficient, feature of moral deliberation and moral valuation.

We build hospitals for sick people. Caring for the sick justifies the construction of hospitals. If there were no sick people, it would be a waste of time and money to build hospitals. Hence, the end justifies the means.

We raise armies and pay policemen. The right of self-defense justifies an army as well as a police force. If we had no enemies or criminals, the outlay would be unjustified. Hence, the end justifies the means.

John Loftus is a secular blogger. He has written in defense of why he is blogging for the cause of atheism. If you read his defense, it’s an exercise in teleological reasoning.

“Kant argued that we should never use people as a means to an end.”

What is this? An argument from authority? Why should I regard Immanuel Kant as a moral authority? Much less regard him as my moral authority?

i) If you want to give me an argument from Kant, then we’ll have something to take about, but to use Kant himself as an argument is a question-begging appeal to authority. Kant’s person opinion does not amount to a reasoned argument for or against anything in general or anything in particular.

ii) We all use people as means to an end. When you go to the grocery store you are using the grocer as a means to an end. And he is using the customer as a means to an end.

When you buy gasoline, you are using the gas station attendant as a means to an end, and he’s using the customer as a means to an end.

A man marries a woman because he has an emotional need for a woman in his life, as well as children. He is using her as a means to an end.

A woman marries a man because she has an emotional need for a man in her life, as well as children. She is using him as a means to an end.

We are needy, dependent, contingent creatures. So, yes, we use each other to supply our material and emotional needs.

Now, there’s a right way and a wrong way to use a person. But there’s nothing intrinsically evil about using another person to satisfy our natural needs. To the contrary, that can be intrinsically good.

“Using people like this is done around the globe by regimes who imprison and torture political prisoners for the good of the regime.”

All this goes to show is that an unworthy end can never justify the means. A worthy end is a minimal precondition of teleological ethics.

“Your God is entitled to have a diametrically opposed ethical system because he's God, right? You explain everything...and nothing.”

That’s a misleading way of putting things. Whatever God does is right.

But mainstream Calvinism does not regard the law of God as a morally arbitrary fiat, so that whatever is right today could be wrong tomorrow, or vice versa.

Certain injunctions are grounded God’s own character, while other injunctions are grounded in the nature he has given us.

“God's goodness is judged by a totally different standard than our standard of goodness. What then does it mean to say God is good, when you say it? You explain everything...and nothing.”

You have a lordly habit of using the editorial “we,” as if your moral intuitions were self-evidently true and universally true.

Kantian ethics does not represent everyone’s standard of goodness.

Tightening the Noose

How do you stop an atheist's argument from drowning? Take your foot off its head!

Today, I don't think I'll do that. Instead I'll continue to press my foot down on the argument, submerge it, and watch it's lifeless body float away.

It all started with THIS POST, which prompted THIS RESPONSE, which generated yet ANOTHER RESPONSE.

At this juncture we have yet another response by Daniel Morgan. His latest response is a telling commentary on the state of the debate, and how he, at least sub-consciously, views it. It's to his latest that I now turn.

"This whole matter boils down to two important concepts, original sin and "election"."

Fine, and I take this as a tacit admission that all the other points I've been arguing for are counted in our favor.

"Original sin has been argued against by fellow Christians and by heretics for years."

Yes, I'm sadly aware of this. Of course this has absolutely ZERO logical weight in the argument at hand. Furthermore, the problem with these arguments is that these people cannot turn around and now claim the imputed righteousness of Christ on their behalf! If they want to deny Adam's imputed unrighteousness then they don't get the imputation of the second Adam either.

"It is a foundational doctrine, against which I will not argue that it can be supported from the present Christian Bible (just as slavery can be)."

Is this how Morgan handles the arguments I gave for original sin in my second post? The question is *does* the Bible support this.

Secondly, notice the red herring brought into the discussion (i.e., slavery).

"That said, I strongly disagree with the logical basis of such a doctrine."

Notice below that he will not at all show how the "logic" of original sin is faulty.

The logical basis is the idea of federal headship, or representation. But Daniel Morgan failed to bring this up. Therefore it appears that Daniel Morgan didn't know what the "logical basis" of the argument was. If he didn't know what the logical basis was, then why say he has a problem with said basis? If he did know what the basis was, then why not mention or critique the basis.

"Because you presuppose the Bible as true, and I do not, as has often been pointed out, this comes down to a matter of premises."

Notice the tacit admition of defeat. The original question was: "does the BIBLE teach original sin." Daniel previously had challenged me to prove this idea from the Bible. Morgan had originally postured this way:

"Of course, the way to resolve this is to explain how "original sin" is attached to election of a fetus, how it has some kind of intrinsic sin value which is justly met with the wrath of God. Personally, I see you descending into some pretty obscure interpretations to support your contention. The idea that fetuses and infants have some sort of willful sin is obvious nonsense. So, original sin is then all you have to go on, and aside from poetic references to David's "i was conceived in sin" I challenge you to substantiate your P2."

See, he challenged me to prove this doctrine from the Bible. At this point what he now is doing is saying, "well forget what the Bible says about it, let's just look at it from an ethical perspective and see if it holds (as we'll note he does below).

Originally the hub-bub started when I critiqued the view that we should shoot infants to get them to heaven. I argued from a biblical basis and showed how this argument cannot be given if biblical premises are assumed. Thus the argument attacks a straw man. The first counter was to try and show that I could not show the Bible supported my argument. Whence I did we don't here an "oh yeah, you're right, well, let's move on to something else; I have other criticisms to give." What we see is a sneaky and underhanded attempt to shift the ground of the debate.

Second, I don't see how this comes down to a matter of premises? I don't even know what that means. What it comes down to is exegesis, and Daniel Morgan is out gunned in this fight. That being the case, he tries to retreat to his outlaw hide out and fight on more familiar turf.

But the problem is that back in town he was shot. He is bleeding all the way to the hide out. He can try to go down in a blaze of glory, and the law can oblige, but we already know he's been shot and his last little outburst is an attempt to go down in the history books as at least having done something. This is all fine, as long as we know that the real fight happened back in town and the kid (as they call him) lost there. Let's now turn to his last hoorah.

"I will argue original sin is false on the basis of the following premises, while you presuppose the Bible is true [which entails a million necessary other premises and explanations and interpretations] and argue it is true:"

And let's remember all that originally mattered was if the Bible taught said doctrine. I already knew you disagreed with it. You didn't need to wait three posts to let us know that.

Let's now look at his argument (against original sin, remember):

1. Morality is based upon the thoughts, choices and actions belonging to a conscious agent
2. If agents are not conscious, they cannot be moral [at any particular moment in question - don't be silly and say that sleep negates this premise]
3. Fetuses are not conscious moral agents
C2. Therefore, fetuses cannot be held to any standard of morality.

This argument fails for many reasons:

i. I deny P1 and so does Christianity, thus it cannot be leveled against the doctrine of original sin since that doctrine cannot be taken out of the system which it's found in.

ii. This premise (1) leads to moral relativism.

iii. P1 allows no moral utterances to ever be the same. When Tom and Pete say that murder is wrong what's happening is that Tom thinks it's wrong because it's based on *his* thoughts and Pete thinks it's wrong because it's based on *his* thoughts.

iv. What is meant by "choices" here? Is Daniel not a physicalist who believes the laws of physics, biology, chemistry, etc determine our thoughts, choices, and actions? If so, then Daniel cannot believe is own P1 for what sense does it make to say that moral prescriptions are based on descriptive laws of physics and such.

v. P2 does not argue against original sin, and thus Daniel can't use this argument against original sin. P2 assumes actual transgressions committed by an agent and not the imputed guilt "inherited" by all of his. This comes nowhere close to dealing with the concept of representation and corporate solidarity taught in the Bible.

vi. P3 is unproven, and, originally, we were talking about all children before the age of accountability. Furthermore, what is "consciousness" on Daniel's materialist point of view? It may be that consciousness is a myth given materialism, and thus no one is a conscious moral agent on Daniel's view. So, his argument does not even follow.

vii. The worst here is the conclusion. Notice that he affirms the antecedent which would bring the conclusion "they cannot be moral." But notice that Daniel changes his conclusion to "they cannot be held to a moral standard." But this was not the consequent of his modus ponens! An egregious logical blunder.

viii. On a representationalist view all men can be held accountable to the moral standard that Adam was under.

ix. Thus since Daniel didn't even come close to touching the biblical doctrine of original sin, his argument totally fails. Furthermore, his conclusion goes beyond the premise, he uses vague and ambiguous terms and, prima facie, uses terms inconsistent with his materialism.

His second argument is more to the point:

1. Individual morality is based upon personal responsibility
2. For justice to occur, moral agents are held responsible for their own choices and not for the choices of others, nor actions over which they have no control
3. "Original sin" implies that individuals are responsible for the choices of other conscious agents
4. Therefore, "original sin" cannot be the basis of a just and logical moral philosophy

i. Note that p1 differs from p1 above. Which one is morality "based" on? Responsibility or thoughts, choices and actions.

ii. P2 is denied by the concept of federal headship. There's no *argument* against original sin here, just an assertion against it.

iii. P2 is demonstrably false. People, schools, and nations are constantly "held accountable" for the moral choices of others. For example, if the football team cheats then the whole school gets blacked-out. If my son smashes my neighbors window and kills her dog, I'm held responsible. These examples can be multiplied ad nauseum.

iv. P2 assumes a freedom that Daniel's materialism doesn't allow for. If we are all determined by the laws of physics how can we have "control" over those actions."

v. Adam did what we all would have done.

vi. Daniel cannot even account for morality.

vii. The conclusion goes beyond the premises.

viii. I deny that "original sin" is "the basis" for morality, so this is no argument against Christianity.

ix. Thus we're justified in rejecting this argument as well.

So much for going down in a blaze of glory, Daniel's firing blanks.

We can go on all day, and I am far from a philosopher, but I can dredge up far better arguments than mine from a text on ethics, I am sure.

Is this the point where I insert one of these: LOL?

The point remains crystal clear -- to hold a fetus morally accountable for something its great-great-great grandfather chose is as logical as a purple elephant circling the earth as a satellite. Your doctrine is intrinsically flawed.

Well,

i. You'd actually have to *show* how it's illogical.

ii. There is nothing "illogical" about a "purple elephant circling the earth as a satellite." It may be false, impossible (physically), etc., but it's not "illogical" since there is no law of logic violated in saying such a thing.

iii. Holding a person morally accountable for something the laws of physics determined he'd do is about as silly as believing that purple elephants orbit the earth as satellites.

iv. Your doctrine is intrinsically flawed.

v. Hint: I'm not scared by tough talk and mere assertions that we have all these supposed problems in our system. One could say that Triablogue is very Missourian about grand assertions, i.e., "show me."

Calvinism explains everything

Loftus seems to think he has a knockdown argument against Calvinism:

“Too much explanatory power? No observation or fact which it cannot explain? What does this mean when applied to Calvinism?”

Given a choice, I prefer a worldview with “too much” explanatory power to a worldview with either too little explanatory power or none at all (atheism).

“Take for instance their whole notion of a completely sovereign God. God does everything…everything. There is no room for human causation…none.”

Demonstrably false. Confessional Calvinism subscribes to a doctrine of primary and secondary causality. Cf. WCF 3:1; 5:2-3.

“Now what reason does God have for punishing human beings on earth in hurricanes, and fires, and diseases like the Spanish Influenza which killed millions of people, and then later sending us to hell when we die? Well, the offered reason is because we have sinned.”

A palpable overstatement. Calvinism does not say that every victim of natural disaster was being punished for his sins. A natural disaster does not represent divine judgment on every individual victim. The pious as well as the impious are swept away in natural disasters.

“This Calvinistic God also has two wills, one revealed in the Bible and a secretive one…the real one…that decrees the things we actually do. But both wills cannot be true at the same time.”

i) Partly true, but trivial, since Loftus is trading on an equivocation of terms. God does not literally have two different wills. The distinction between his decretive will and his preceptive will, while conceptually sound, is a linguistic convention.

His preceptive “will” is simply a synonym for the law of God.

ii) Partly false. Both the decretive and the preceptive will of God are revealed in Scripture. That’s how we know about them in the first place.

Scripture reveals the existence of his decretive will, as well as disclosing the general content of his decretive will.

“If the Bible says, ‘thou shalt not kill,’ and then God secretively decrees both the desire to kill and actually takes a man’s hand and causes the arm to swing an ax to split another man’s head, there is a contradiction in what God actually wants us to do. Does God want this man to kill or not? The contradiction is resolved for the Calvinist because she will say that God’s secretive will is his true will. But this means that, on Calvinistic grounds, the Bible is full of lies and cannot be trusted when it tells us what God wants us to do.”

i) This fails, as before, to distinguish between primary and secondary agency.

ii) It also fails to distinguish between ends and means.

The law of God serves more than one purpose. In some cases is restrains sin. In other cases, it exposes the inexcusable character of sin.

God wills both results, but he doesn’t will both results for one and the same party at one and the same time.

God does not will things in isolation, as if his attitude towards the means is irrespective of his attitude towards the end which they subserve.

Since the reprobate don’t believe in either his preceptive or decretive will, they have no trust which can be betrayed.

Conversely, the believer can never go wrong by trusting in either the preceptive or the decretive will of God.

“If we say that such a God does not care for us and is only interested in himself, the Calvinist will respond that he has a moral right to be concerned with his own glory over anyone else's since he alone deserves all the glory.”

This is simplistic. The elect are glorified in the glory of God. They glory in God, and they are the beneficiaries of his manifest mercy.

“As far as the Calvinist knows, God’s secretive will may be that they should be deceived about Calvinism. Based on their own theology they have no reason to trust God…none. God may be leading them astray, based upon his secretive will, only to cast them in hell for his own glory, and he may turn around and reward those of us who are atheists, simply because he secretively decreed us into unbelief.”

This builds on Loftus’ false antithesis between what is revealed in Scripture and what is concealed.

God’s decretive will is, itself, a revealed truth. For God to consign the elect to hell and the reprobate to heaven would contract the revelation of his decretive will.

For example, God has revealed that “whoever endures to the end will be saved.” This is a promise that God has both revealed and decreed.

“The Calvinist answer is that everything God does is good, even if we cannot understand it. So every instance of human suffering that any human being has ever experienced was and is good.”

This is simplistic on a couple of grounds:

i) We do know in general why God foreordained the fall (e.g. Rom 11:32; Gal 3:22).

So it’s not as if we’re completely in the dark. It’s not an utter enigma.

What we don’t know is why God decrees any particular evil.

ii) As for every instance of suffering being good, that’s ambiguous. Good for whom? Good for what? It’s not always good for the victim. Suffering is not intended to be beneficial for the reprobate.

But it is good for the elect. It is good in the furtherance of a higher good.

“Why does a Calvinist think anyone...anyone...should trust their God? Why? What reasons are there for trusting such a God? There are none…none…not on Calvinistic grounds, for reasons I just specified.”

The unspoken assumption in every attack leveled by Loftus on the Christian faith is that Christian faith is simply a matter of opinion. We believe, but we don’t know.

So it’s always a matter of weighing the evidence and the counterevidence in the balance. If he can muster just enough atheological arguments, then that will tip the scales in the direction of unbelief.

But this confuses experience with apologetics. In doing apologetics, a Christian apologist cannot use the argument from experience since he is addressing an outsider.

So he limits himself to common ground arguments. And that’s part of his own reason for being a believer.

Yet this is not the only reason. It’s merely the only publicly accessible reason available to believer and unbeliever alike.

But, for a true believer, the reality of God is an undeniable datum of consciousness. It is something that he intuitively apprehends, which is further confirmed by God’s providence in his life.

For him, the existence of God is one thing, and the problem of evil is another. No doubt they’re related in some way. But the existence of evil no more disproves the existence of God than one existential truth disproves another existential truth.

I might as well try to deny my belief in other minds, or my personal memories, or the tree I see outside my bedroom window.

The belief is spontaneous and irrepressible. My awareness of God is inseparable from my self-awareness.

Even if that stood in a state of intellectual tension with something else I equally believe, both beliefs would retain their steadfast hold on my instinctual and indubitable perception of the world.

“So, since this is the case, I can look at the amount of suffering in this world and reasonably conclude there is no good God.”

Not only is this a fallacious inference from Calvinism, it’s an equally fallacious inference from atheism:

i) Loftus needs to come up with a version of secular ethics that can justify his moral repugnance.

ii) And even if he succeeded in (i), he also needs to come up with a secular anthropology that can ascribe sufficient dignity or even mentality to human beings to justify his moral repugnance.

I have never seen him attempt to discharge either burden of proof. But maybe he can refer us to something he’s posted on the subject.

Creation & providence

Daniel Morgan said:

“Were the species all created ex nihilo?”

1.Before proceeding any further, let’s clarify our terms:

i)”Creation may be either first and immediate (which is simply ex nihilo) or secondary and mediate (which is made indeed from some matter). The former is unfit and out of order, not set in order by any force of second causes to the production of the terminus,” Turretin, Institutes 1:432.

ii)”Had he [Einstein] reflected more on what physics can do, he would not have bogged down in the futile question about the understanding of the how of the creation of the universe. For if that how meant creation out of nothing, it could not be understood in terms of quantitative relations, the sole business of physics,” S. Jaki, God & the Cosmologists (Regnery 1989), 95.

2.Gen 1 doesn’t deal with the creation of “species,” but natural kinds.

3.Exegetically speaking, the ordinal numbered diurnal series probably implies that time began with the creation of the universe.

This, in turn, logically implies the nonexistence of preexisting matter, for preexisting matter would have the property of duration.

4.This interpretation is supported by Col 1:15, which clearly implies creation ex nihilo.

5.Day 1 involves the creation of ex nihilo of matter/energy.

It’s possible that the creation of the organic order (days 3,5-6) made use of raw inorganic materials. Cf. Gen 2:7.

Such inorganic materials were preexistent vis-à-vis the organic order. But they were not preexistence vis-à-vis creation proper.

6.Even if the creation of the organic order made use of raw inorganic materials, the organic order did not originate by ordinary natural processes.

According to Gen 1, organisms reproduce according to their kind. But the natural kinds did not originate by this process. Rather, the process was instantiated by divine fiat.

Exegetically speaking, it’s possible that each organic or inorganic artifact was created instantaneously, although the totality of natural kinds was phased in over six days, in a series of discrete fiats.

Or it’s possible that each artifact was instantiated over time, but at a highly accelerated rate, so as to be fully formed at the end of each day.

The account is not that specific.

6.In either case, you don’t have plants made from other plants or animals made from other animals.

At most, you’d have fauna and flora directly constituted from the raw inorganic materials, which originated on day 1.

“1) Are the physicists lying about the age of the earth?”

Secular dating schemes extrapolate the age of the earth on the basis of radiometric decay rates. There are a few fundamental of problems with this extrapolation:

i) Given a cyclical process, you might be able to extrapolate up-to-a-point on the basis of that process.

If, however, the cycle was instantiated ex nihilo, then you cannot infer the date of creation from the periodicity of the process since the cycle itself was not phased in over time by some linear process, but given in toto.

Any chronological extrapolation would afford a relative date, but not an absolute date.

For example, if the power goes off, and the electric clocks are reset, you can calculate the passage of time from that point onwards, but this doesn’t tell give you the status quo ante.

Likewise, when a jeweler replaces a batter on a watch, he will reset the time, but in so doing he zeros out the previous reading.

When the power goes off, all the clocks give the same time, and when the power comes back on, they all give the same time, but the time they give is relative time, not absolute time. And unless they are recalibrated to make allowance for the power outage, they will all give the wrong time.

Synchrony is no evidence of absolute chronology.

Same is true if we reset our wristwatch as we pass from one time zone to another.

ii) Let’s also remember that radiometric decay rates are not designed to tell the time. That is not their natural function.

Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong with putting them to some extraneous use, but to assume that they must yield an accurate result irrespective of their physical purpose is philosophically naive and ironically androcentric.

iii) So the question remains: if the universe was instantiated both in toto and ex nihilo in six stages, what would it look like?

Given a temporal process, we may be able to calculate the rate of change, but if the cycle is not, itself, the result of a temporal process, then we cannot use the cycle to date the origin of the cycle. Rather, we can only use it as a proximate point of reference to date other things.

iv) Does this make a secular geologist or physicist a liar?

No, but it does make him terribly gauche, which, in some ways, is worse.

Better to be a competent liar than a well-meaning klutz.

“2) Are the biologists lying about the descent with modification of species from common ancestors?”

This is, of course, another leading question.

i) It assumes that all of the evidence lines up behind naturalistic evolution.

ii) It fails to distinguish between evidence for microevolution and evidence for macroevolution.

iii) It skates over the difference between the solid front they like to present for public consumption, and the internecine warfare which resumes as soon as they think the microphone is off. Cf.

A. Brown, The Darwin Wars (Simon & Schuster 2001).

R. Morris, The Evolutionists (Henry Holt & Co., 2001).

U. Segerstrale, Defenders of the Truth: The Sociology Debate (Oxford 2001).

iv) Since a secular biologist denies divine creation, he is precommitted to something like naturalistic evolution, apart from any hard evidence whatsoever.

v) A secular biologist will make no allowance for the possible affect of a global flood on the fossil record.

vi) Then there’s the last-ditch resort to methological naturalism to putty over the factual gaps in the case for evolution.

vii) Not to mention the blacklisting of scientific dissent.

Pardon Me, Might You Have Any Grey Poupon?

The esteemed Daniel Morgan the III graced us with his presence in the combox of this post.

For starters, the honorable Daniel Morgan made this claim:

"So, would you prefer I call you "Paulie"? I prefer Daniel, and if I can be called Daniel, rather than "Polly the parakeet" or some permutation of Snoop Dogg's ebonics-talk, I would appreciate it, and reciprocate with "Paul". I subscribe to "tit for tat", you see."

1. Well, I don't care what you call me, frankly. But of course I apparently have thicker skin than you. Non-Christians have been mocking God and Christians in the intellectual arena for many many years, when they meet up with some Christians that can sling the rhetoric just as good, no, better, we see what kind of metal they're made of. Aluminum.

2. Daniel Morgan, that fine young chap, is the one who threatened to sue Frank Walton and so I'll pipe down and succumb to his wishes lest he threaten me with a law suit as well. He's mentioned that the funky-debunkies have a "lawyer on staff." I was wondering if they could ask him to write a post on what sort of pain and suffering payment the esteemed Daniel Morgan could receive for being called D-dizzle Morgizzle? If it's a lot, maybe he could get that platinum grill up in his mouth that he's always wanted, or, the top row diamond and the bottom row gold.

3. For shizzle is not Ebonics, or a variation of ebonics. Ebonics is a dialect or ethnolect of the English American language. There are many rules and grammatical characteristics that Ebonics has, such as the use of forms of be to mark aspect in verb phrases, e.g., "he be workin." Ebonics is actually very close to informal Southern Dialect and uses many of its characteristics.

For shizzle is a language game (or, ludling). Said game manipulates spoken words of a particular language for the main purpose of rendering them incomprehensible to the untrained or "un-hip" ear. For shizzle is short for "fo shizzle mah nizzle." Which is a take on "fo sheezy mah neezy" which decodes to "I concur with you whole heartedly my brother." Now, if you had ever watched the Snoop D O double gizzle on the televizzle you might have known these things, but it appears you're ignizzle of what's happening outside of, say, the latest from Jeffery Jay Lowder and Richard Carrier. There's a world outside of athizzle, my infidizzle homizzle.

****

"First, a clarification is in order: this topic came up, and I quoted Paul, in reference to abortion, not infanticide, but, you guys have a bit of a moral issue in declaring that infanticide is always sin, don't you? (eg 1 Sam 15:3, Num 31:17-8)

1. Why is this "sick?" In fact, D-dizzle has argued that it's okay for mothers to murder their unborn children, as long as it's early enough in the pregnancy. Is he arbitrary? For shizzle.

Hmmm, well, Paul, perhaps my "arbitriness" [sic] stems from a couple of things which you appear blissfully unaware of:
a) God is supposed to be perfectly merciful and gracious, no one claims humans are perfectly anything [and no one claims they need to be except Christians]
b) Using the term "murder" as you have here is rhetoric. I can just as easily declaim that God "murders" over 40% of all fetuses via natural abortion, since in your worldview, your sovereign God chooses for it to happen that they die. Thus your God "murders" far more fetuses than mothers do. Let's not descend into such rhetorical platitudes.
c) There is just a *bit* of a difference between ending something's life and sending it into an eternal hell, consider:
i) A fetus is not self-aware, so that when they die, whether by natural [God-ordained] or terminative abortion, there is no awareness of this fact...is the same true with hell?
ii) The process of death itself is temporal, and almost always brief. Your God sends infants to an infinite/eternal hell
iii) The process of death may or may not be painful, but let's rank the pain of physical death as a 1 on a scale of 10^1000, where hell = 10^1000"

****

There are many errors here, let's help our benighted, oops, I meant knighted, friend out. Regarding his "clarification." First off, there's no such thing as Numbers 31: 17 - 8. Secondly, I am against the murder of infants (indeed, anyone). I fail to see how God executing criminals worthy of the death penalty is murder? I mean, you're the one who said he had a lawyer on staff, why don't you ask him. Oh, you must be assuming that this is a case where God unjustly takes the life of those infants. Well, the burden is on you to prove this. If we take the entire Bible together, and not leave out the parts which make the theory consistent, then we have no problem. Only if you [a] assume a humanistic theory of ethics and [b] leave out the relevant information the Bible provides do we have an inconsistency. In other words, only if you assume the Bible is false do we have a problem. Hence, when analyzed, we see your counter defeater is terribly uninteresting. Anyone can assume the falsity of a system and then, on that assumption, coupled with leaving important details of the system out, show how the system has faults. Now, the intellectually touch job is to actually present our position correctly and then proceed to knock it down. (Furthermore, this response applies a tu quoque fallacy to our discussion.)

Now, let's look at how our good sir's arbitrariness stems from a couple of things I'm blissfully unaware of:

1. He says I'm unaware of a "couple" things yet cites 3 points and 3 sub points that I'm unaware of. Since when is being unaware of 6 points count as being unaware of a "couple" points?

2. Apropos (a). Sorry I was unaware of a couple points. I'm not perfect, ya know. But, God is merciful yes, He's also just. The problem here is that you've nowhere indicated what I was supposed to be unaware of, or how this point bares on the discussion. What does this have to do with your arbitrariness? You don't need to be perfect to not be arbitrary. Bottom line, you think it's mean that God would send fetus' to hell but not mean for their mothers to chop them up. That's a result of your sin-laden mind, my friend.

3. Apropos (b). Well, of course we've been there done that and you have no arguments for your pro-choice position, but assume the opposite. I'll take murder out. You don't have a problem with Mom's killing their babies but you have a problem with God killing babies. But, taking your "reversal" you could not claim that since God is not unjustly taking their life, the mother (or doctor) is. So, it wasn't even a proper counter.

4. Apropos (c). We were talking about the act of killing the child. On this score you're inconsistent. You're assuming, without benefit of argument, that annihilation is somehow "better" than living forever in hell. Furthermore, no one, except the agent who ends up in hell, "sends" that agent to hell.

Apropos your sub-points: I never said that hell wasn't the worse punishment imaginable. But, this is where criminals spend eternity. How is a criminal justly being punished somehow more morally evil than murdering someone?

****

"2. And, yes, the claim is that "all elect infants dying in infancy" will go to heaven. Indeed, there is not one verse in the Bible that tells us that all infants who die in infancy will go to heaven.

The claim was actually regarding, "won't aborting fetuses ensure their place in heaven?" To which you answer "no, not necessarily, some fetuses are not elect, and so go to hell" If there is a verse you can point to which clarifies this point, I would love to read it. I am not claiming there isn't one, but I certainly am not aware of any verse in the Bible which deals with unborn children with respect to their fate in the afterlife."

****

No, *my* claim is that elect infants dying in infancy go to heaven. This is my claim, and it rebuts the claim that we can save souls by murdering them before they reach the age of accountability. Is there a claim regarding unborn infants and where they spend their "afterlife." Well, not just infants (and, the original question was dealing with post-natal children, not unborn infants, anyway) but everyone. The Bible teaches that some have been elected unto everlasting life and some have been elected to everlasting damnation. Thus a logical inference of the claim: All elect go to heaven, is "If an infant is elect and dies in infancy that infant will go to heaven." If all infants who die in infancy are elect then all infants who die in infancy will go to heaven. But this also avoids the argument because, counterfactually, if they did not die in infancy, but where still elect, they'd go to heaven anyway. Likewise, if an infant is not elect then it will not go to heaven. Shooting it in the head will not change this. Now, I don't know who is and who isn't elect since they don't have big red "Es" on their forehead. But this doesn't change the logic of the Bible's claims about election. Now if you're asking for verses which prove election I'd just refer you to THIS PAGE where you'll see verses like this:

"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 to be adopted as his sons 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." (Eph 1:4-6).

"And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." (Rom 8:30).

Fully exegeted and explained.


****

"3. The unstated premise is that "God is wrong for sending infants to hell because their innocent." Once we see the unstated premise we can see that this position simply begs the question against the Christian worldview. If we restate this argument, then, it looks like this: "If we assume that portions of Christianity are wrong then we can show how God is a big meany."

Um, no. The premises of Xianity are:
1) Humans sin against [sic] God
2) God is just in sending sinful humans to hell
3) Therefore some humans go to hell [not dealing with the "elect" here for simplification]

The argument that was made:
1) Fetuses do not sin against God
2) God is not just in sending sinless fetuses to hell
3) Therefore no fetuses go to hell

The refutation you offered is:
1) Only the elect avoid hell
2) Not all fetuses are elect
3) Some fetuses go to hell

Of course, the way to resolve this is to explain how "original sin" is attached to election of a fetus, how it has some kind of intrinsic sin value which is justly met with the wrath of God. Personally, I see you descending into some pretty obscure interpretations to support your contention. The idea that fetuses and infants have some sort of willful sin is obvious nonsense. So, original sin is then all you have to go on, and aside from poetic references to David's "i was conceived in sin" I challenge you to substantiate your P2."

****

1. I did not see "the argument made" that "Fetuses do not sine against God." Can you point out where you actually argued for that?

2. I never said that "not all fetuses are elect." I said, "Elect infants dying in infancy" go to heaven. This is a logically different claim than what you claim I said. Now, it *could* be the case that some are not-elect and in that case shooting them does not save them from heaven. Conversely, it *could* be the case that all infants who die in infancy are elect and, therefore, counter to fact, if they had not been killed in infancy they would still have been in heaven since infancy is not a condition of election but, rather, the sovereign pleasure of God.

3. Yes, all infants are sinful before God. They all have sinned because of their federal head, Adam, who was God's perfect choice to represent mankind, sinned. This is shown by many passages. For example, Romans 5 teaches us

12 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:--

13 for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many.

16 And not as through one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment came of one unto condemnation, but the free gift came of many trespasses unto justification.

17 For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, even Jesus Christ.

18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life.

19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous.

20 And the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly:

21 that, as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

For more explanation of this doctrine you can consult THIS PAGE as well as read my confession of faith:

Chapter VI

Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof

I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit.[1] This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.[2]

II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God,[3] and so became dead in sin,[4] and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.[5]

III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[6] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.[7]

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,[8] and wholly inclined to all evil,[9] do proceed all actual transgressions.[10]

V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated;[11] and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.[12]

VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,[13] does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,[14] whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,[15] and curse of the law,[16] and so made subject to death,[17] with all miseries spiritual,[18] temporal,[19] and eternal.[20]

[1] GEN 3:13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. 2CO 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

[2] ROM 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

[3] GEN 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. 8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. ECC 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. ROM 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

[4] GEN 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. EPH 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.

[5] TIT 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. GEN 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. JER 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? ROM 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

[6] GEN 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. ACT 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation. ROM 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 1CO 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

[7] PSA 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. GEN 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth. JOB 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

[8] ROM 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. ROM 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. ROM 7:18 For I know that in me(that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. COL 1:21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.

[9] GEN 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 8:21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. ROM 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

[10] JAM 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. EPH 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. MAT 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.

[11] 1JO 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. ROM 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me(that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. JAM 3:2 For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin? ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

[12]ROM 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. GAL 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

[13] 1JO 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

[14] ROM 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. ROM 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. 19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

[15] EPH 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

[16] GAL 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

[17] ROM 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

[18] EPH 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart.

[19] ROM 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope. LAM 3:39 Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins?

[20] MAT 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. 2TH 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.

****

4. Lastly, he points out what us Christians have always wanted people to agree with. We don't worship God, or believe in Christianity, because it fits some soft, humanistic, can't we all just get along, pie in the sky bye and bye, mentality.

I point out what Christians have always wanted to avoid facing -- that this interpretation of their God is one of an immoral monster, in that it sends some fetuses/infants to an eternal darkness, to which Paul replies in Romans 9 only "who are you?" Without examining the truth value of your premises, it is quite clear that most people have enough moral fiber to reject your interpretation, and you know it, and that is why only 1% of 1% of Christians would ever make such a claim. That you would worship such a being belies your own moral vacuity.

****

1. Remember the belted earl mentioning staying away from rhetoric?

2. Again, note the failure to represent the Christian position correctly. How is sending someone to his just reward being an immoral monster? I guess the esteemed Mr. Morgan the III is against punishing criminals. If not, then he's only begging the question.

3. The truth value of the premise is that whatever God does is just and right. He makes the laws, not man. Who are we to talk back to God? Indeed, as Daniel pointed out above, "we're not perfect." So, even on his own assumption, who is the imperfect to talk back to the perfect, as if he actually knew more about justice and morality that God.

4. I'm sure that "most" people do reject my "interpretation." But since when was "most people" an indicator of a good argument? Weren’t you just chiding Paul for not arguing for his premise? Arbitrary indeed! That you would resort to such elementary logical blunders belies your own ability to engage in a cogent discussion with a Christian who is not afraid of [a] being called Pauly or [b] what "most people" think and [c] being tough-minded and eschewing such poor reasoning tactics.

****
This is also an ad-hominem against Jehovah.

Actually it's a critique of your worldview. Equivocating your interpretation as "God" is telling.

****

Actually it leaves out the premises that man is a guilty criminal in God's universe and therefore you had to disregard my worldview in order to critique my worldview. Hey, you know what we said in Navy SEAL training? "If you're not cheating you're not trying." At least the honorable Daniel Morgan the III is trying, how cute, I could just squeeze his cheeks.


****

And, as Dan Barker, an ex-debunker

?? ex?? Is he still not an atheist?

****

Pay attention now. Dan Barker used to be on your team, hence he was a fellow debunker. Now that he's not a debunker does not mean he's not an atheist, unless you assume that their are only 11 atheists in the world (the number of team members on your blog). Furthermore, someone could be a Buddhist and try to debunk Christianity. So, "debunker" is not synonymous for "atheist."

Well, ta ta for now my good man. Might you join me for tea and crumpets sometime? I'd love to have a spot of tea and see you in your fine knickers while we play cricket.