Updated 12:47 pm.EST, Sun November 22, 2009

Education|Tue, Apr. 07 2009 08:10 AM EDT

Renowned Apologist and Atheist Debate 'Does God Exist?'

By Elena Garcia|Christian Post Reporter

Christian apologist William Lane Craig and renowned atheist Christopher Hitchens went head-to-head in a debate over the existence of God Saturday night as thousands intently listened on at the sold-out event and via live feeds.

  • william lane craig
    (Photo: The Chimes / Kelsey Heng)
    Christian apologist William Lane Craig argues for the existence of God in the 'Does God Exist?' debate against renowned atheist Christopher Hitchens at Biola University on April 4, 2009.

The debate "Does God Exist?" held at Biola University, an evangelical Christian university in Southern California, was the second time in two weeks that the two figures sparred over the topic. During the Christian Book Expo in Dallas last month, Craig and Hitchens took opposing sides in a panel examining "Does the God of Christianity Exist, and What Difference Does It Make?"

An estimated 4,000 people packed the university's gym to watch the event while an additional 6,000 from around 120 church sites from another thirty states and four countries watched a live feed of the debate.

Craig, a Biola professor and one of the world's leading philosophers of religion, claimed in opening remarks that there is no good argument that atheism is true but that there are good arguments that theism is true.

He gave five main arguments to support the existence of God: 1) the cosmological argument – the universe came from something rather than nothing; 2) the teleological argument – the complexity in the universe presents the case for an intelligent designer; 3) the moral argument – true morality comes from God; 4) the resurrection of Jesus – the evidence of the resurrection has not been refuted and 5) the immediate experience of God – experience as evidence for God.

Throughout the debate, Craig, who authored Resaonable Faith, challenged Hitchens to refute his five points and provide positive evidence that it is irrational to hold a belief that God exists. But by the event's end, Craig expressed disappointment that Hitchens did not provide arguments to support his truth.

"We've heard attacks upon religion, Christianity impugned, God impugned, Mother Teresa impugned, but we haven't heard any arguments that God does not exist," said Craig.

"Mr. Hitchens seems to fail to recognize that atheism is itself a worldview, and that it claims alone to be true and all the other religions of the world false."

Hitchens, part of the movement of "new atheists" or "militant atheists" who seek to eliminate religion, said he didn't have to prove God didn't exist. He said that it was Craig who must prove the existence of God while he can take the role of the skeptic and doubt such a being exists.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," said Hitchens, author of the New York Times bestseller God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

Even if there was a God, continued the outspoken atheist, it still wouldn't prove that this entity cared about man or answered prayers.

During the rebuttal session, Craig took issue with what he felt was Hitchens' failure to provide reasons for how atheists can decide what is moral or immoral.

Hitchens responded by saying there is no proof that people closer to a supernatural being act better than people who are not. He said he has yet to discover good actions a person of faith might undertake that he cannot.

Craig said that without objective morality being rooted in God, man is left with subjective relativism.

At one point, the debate moved to the question of whether man can have meaning in life apart from God. Craig argued that life is objectively meaningless for the atheist because he is heading toward emptiness and death. Hitchens said being free from false belief and helping others to do the same brings meaning to his life.

"Emancipate yourself from the idea of a celestial dictatorship and you've taken the first step toward becoming free," Hitchens told the crowd.

Following the debate, attendants had the opportunity to purchase books from both authors during a book signing.

"It went good, Craig offered arguments, whereas Hitchens didn’t," Stan Markowski, a Biola senior, commented, according to the Daily Titan, the student newspaper of California State University, Fullerton.

Jaden Netwig, a high school student from Long Beach, said the debate didn't change his mind on his atheist beliefs but said he was "still open to the possibility of God," reported Whittier Daily News.

The debate was sponsored by the Biola Student Association as well as the Christian Apologetics department at Biola University.

"I thought it was a great showing for belief in God, the Christian intellectual tradition, and Biola University as a global center for Christian thought," said debate host Craig Hazen, director of the M.A. program in Christian apologetics at Biola.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3
  • Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:34 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Why They Eventually Leave Atheism.

    It is Unrealistic and Unlivable.

    http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com

  • Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:54 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 7

    This question is to all of the agnostics and atheists?

    What is nothing????????????

    Would it be safe to say, nothing is the absense of something??????

    If "nothing" is the absense of something, how would you know what something is, without nothing? For you cannot know that you have something without comparing it to nothing. If I said I am holding an apple and there is nothing in my hand, you would call me a liar because I am holding nothing. Thus we have proven nothing is in fact something or else you would not recognize it. This explains the existence of God. God is outside of our dimensions of time and space.

  • Wed May 06, 2009 1:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Davidhall - your eloquent commentary on 4/17/09 was uplifting. thank you.

    fear = reverence = in awe before our Holy & Just Lord

  • Wed May 06, 2009 9:09 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Belhaven - you mentioned something like 'books written by a cult thousands years ago';'without evidence''myths'. My question: do you believe ANY historical text which is a documented 'eye-witness' account of an event? Are all our history books filled with lies then? Following your logic there is no truth to past events because 'you' were not present to eye witness the event. This is subjective reality. There are plenty of tiertiary 'non-religious' eye witness documentors of historical Biblical accounts. You'll just have to find the information which happens to be mounting in favor of a theistic universe.Also,I do not understand your connection between 'Craigs five points being classic' to being old because religion plugs her ears when wrong? How is this related? You say religion is wrong. Why? What is exactly wrong with religion? Prove your statement. Craigs points follow a supreme order of critical thinking necessary for discovery. That, is basic or classic thought. We desperately need to learn how to think properly. I am so glad to hear that young man who's aethist is opening his precepts for reconsideration.

  • Fri May 01, 2009 2:18 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Davidhall,

    That was a lovely summary. Pertinent quotes from books written by cult members thousands of years ago. Claims of one myth's historical veracity with absolutely no evidence. Moral statements which rely on the other unfounded claims.

    Craig's five points are classics. They are not old because they haven't been refuted, they are old because when religion is shown to be wrong it simply plugs its ears and shouts louder. Some people still think Pascal's wager is cutting edge, but I'm afraid they're a couple centuries behind.

  • Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:43 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I know God is real. Jesus is Lord.

    Yet I couldn't say I'd be good at debating.

  • Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:23 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Hello, Steve.

    As you can imagine, my weekends get pretty packed in (especially Sunday), so I'm just coming up for air at 11:15 PM PST. Thanks for your post, acknowledging that your arguments do not objection of God. Nevertheless, Steve, you have denied the authoritative statement that God has made about the history of the universe and the human race. If God has not spoken, then anybody's opinion is as valuable as the next. But the overwhelming evidence (through 100% fulfilled prophecy, the miraculous life of Christ, His resurrection, the eyewitness accounts (both hostile and friendly) and the design of the universe that has left the forensic proof that the God of the Bible (who alone presents Himself as the One transcends time, space, and matter, criteria that is essential to explain the observed order of our universe); these with a myriad of other solid reasons to believe the Lord Jesus Christ, all proclaim that those who object to the Biblical Account of creation and salvation are without excuse (Romans 1:1-4,18-20). God Himself objects to those who deny His description of Himself in the Bible (Psalm 50:21), and holds us accountable for the unsurpassed evidence that He presents (1 John 5:9,10). A review of Craig's 5 points substantiates the singular witness that points to Christ.

  • Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hello David

    Just to clarify, nothing I have written is an objection to God, it is though an objection to the way the history of the universe, human race ect..is portrayed. I'm not aware that people disagreeing over such things mean that God is being objected to.

    BW

    Steve

  • Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Amen, Believer.

    I continue to enjoy outreach and fellowship in the military community through the San Diego Servicemen's Christian Home (SCH) as well as through my daily blog called Quiet Time Poems (which I'm working on now) at http://quiettimepoems.blogspot.com, which I also e-mail daily to servicemen throughout the world. God bless!

  • Sat Apr 18, 2009 2:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    dh, as I just told another poster, the only thing we can do is bring them to the living water and although we can't make them drink we can by the power of the Holy Spirit do our best to make them thirsty for that water. I was saved through the witness of two Navigators at Langley AFB 05/31/71, but I did visit the Christian Serviceman's Center in Newport News, VA., CCK Taiwan, Fort Riley, KS. and Goldsboro, NC. Those are great ministries to those in the military and provide a safe haven for many.

  • Sat Apr 18, 2009 2:09 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Yes, the Gospel showed Jesus' love and mercy. But many Christians stop there. They never read Revelation (of Jesus Christ), and who He is. Yes, He is a God of love and mercy, but He is also a God of judgment and holiness.

  • Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hello, Believer.

    Yes, in fact I was on the USS Midway in 1973, and became acquainted right away with the Servicemen's Christian Home in Yokosuka, Japan. Great fellowship! But I wasn't really approached by any Christians on the ship because I had usually challenged them to produce some kind of evidence for what they believed. So I was rather regarded as a nuisance because I would come up with the same kind of objections as Bass and Steve. But I had to walk those midnight watches all alone, and I eventually turned my objections into a "God if You're there" dialogue. To shorten the story, I was invited to talk to the Servicemen's Christian Home and was able to hear some clear answers that uniquely identified Christ as the one who answered all my objections with the proof of His fulfilled prophecies, His resurrection, and powerful impact on the pages of history as no other can began to match. I know it's not all about "intellectual satisfaction," but let's be honest: Bass sees Christianity as just one of many philosophical preferences, and so did I. I had to be able to make a credible distinction among the many who offered different belief systems just as adamantly as we do the Gospel (albeit with blind faith without evidence). Christ stands alone as the ABSOLUTE Way, the Truth, and the Life, and has the evidence to prove it. Hallelujah!

  • Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:02 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    dh, not usually up this late but having computer problems and can only get to a server through the safe mode and I am totally ignorant on a lot of this computer stuff. But I think in many ways we're in total agreement and especially about the fact we need to meet people where they are in their understanding of the Gospel, but Praise the Lord we have the Holy Spirit to give us the wisdom and the discernment we need in these matters. Were you in the military when you got saved?

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hello again, Believer.

    I think we are typing our posts at the same time, because I'm reading your additional posts after I post mine. I can certainly relate to your situation, as I was also raised in a Catholic setting, but it was just and empty framework that had no moral power on me or my six siblings. After I came to Christ in Yokosuka, Japan, I pleaded with my siblings and parents to reconsider the Gospel in the light of the evidence. My Dad came to Christ 4 months before he died, my mother came a couple of years before she died. Some of my siblings have come, others have become more hardened. But the common need was to take Christianity out of the realm of mere "religious preference," and into the stage of urgent reality. So many today are in grave danger because they think that Jesus Christ is "debatable," rather than critical to their wellbeing. I am grateful for this forum that has stood to stand up for the credibility of the Gospel in a world that scoffs at it to their own destruction. Thanks again for your fellowship. The Lord is risen indeed! (Luke 24:34).

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer,

    I am notorious for omitting (or failing to omit) words out of my post that I thought I had typed. Sorry for my poor proof reading. I should also say that not everyone requires the same emphasis regaring judgment, as the Lord knows we are at different places of understanding. John 3 is Nicodemus. John 4 is the woman of Samaria. And so on. We all need exactly the same salvation, but we should be sensitive to the people with whom we share to see where they are at in their understanding. Thanks for your patience with posts, your partnership in the Gospel, and your fellowship in Christ, brother.

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer,

    I understand your reticence in emphasizing the fear of the Lord in sharing the Gospel. In your case, you are resting in the lovingkindness of the Good Shepherd who has promised that NO ONE can pluck you out of His hand (John 10:27-29). You have the assurance of the Lover of your soul that you shall never perish, but how terribly costly that assurance was to Your Savior! How can we help but love Him? But we live in a world of sinners that whom the Spirit of God is reproving daily of SIN (our nature), RIGHTEOUSNESS (our need), and JUDGMENT (our nearness). While we must rightly speak of the great love of God, we will be remiss in sharing the Gospel if it does not include the reality of judgment. Truly the bridge IS out ahead and the fall is fearful indeed, and you were right to tell Bass in trouble, unless he turned around. How wonderful it is to proclaim the love of our Lord! But we cannot share the way of the Lord without also sharing the warning of the Lord. Even when its unpopular. Thanks for your reply.

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    dh, and I would include in what you said a sense of fear for what awaits those who do not come to the saving knowledge of Christ before they die.

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    dh, but I can honestly say in my own conversion experience I don't believe fear was involved at all. When I was told for the very first time in my life that God wanted to have a personal relationship with me through Christ, God had my full and undivided attention. And that night in my bunk I simply told God I didn't completely understand everything those guys told me, but I knew this if He wanted to have a personal relationship with me then I sure wanted to have one with Him and I said and meant the believers prayer and right then and there I became a child of God. Don't misunderstand me they told me I was a sinner which was no surprise to me and how my sins separated me from God and how Christ died for my sins, but growing up catholic I pretty much knew those things already.

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    dh, the last part of your post I agree with you 110%, but when it comes to our salvation I can see fear as a catalyst but if the only reason a person makes a profession of faith is their fear of going to hell then I really wonder how genuine that profession of faith is and granted I realize that only God can know with all certainty who has and who has not made a genuine profession of faith.

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hello Believer,

    If someone comes to Christ without a shred of fear of what Christ was saving that one from when He died (as you rightly said in your previous post) "a horrible death on the cross," that would be curious indeed. The kind of fear that has us shaking in our boots, is the kind that the apostle Paul was talking about when he wrote: "Knowing therefor the TERROR of the Lord, we persuade men" (2 Corinthians 5:11). We love Him, because He first loved us, and manifested that love by coming to our rescue to face and absorb the unspeakable horror that awaited us if we slip into eternity without a Savior. That being said, EVERY child of God loves the Lord (John 8:42). Grace saved us, and grace gave us a new nature to love Him in return. Thus the fear of the Lord for us is no longer a fear of judgment, but a right sense of accoutability, reverence, trust, and love for Him who loved us and gave Himself for us. God bless you!

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    dh, but I think we may be talking about two different types of fear one being an awesome fear that leads us to see God for who He is and truly grasp how wonderful His grace is and the other is the shaking in your boots kind which certainly God can use to lead us to come to see our need to be saved. But if our profession of faith is only based on our fear of going to hell then I believe there is a high probability one did not make a genuine profession of faith.

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Bass/Believer,

    Sounds like you both have exhausted your the topic to your satisfaction. Just a couple of observations. It is indeed a refreshing experience to share from your heart with mutual respect. Thank you for modeling that. On the issue of fear/concern, John Newton (Amazing Grace), wrote: 'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fears relieved! How precious did that grace appear, the hour I first believed. Indeed, "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Proverbs 9:10), but it is not all there is to Christianity. The Savior who tasted death for us embraces us with the same love that held Him to the cross, and that is what Newton was talking about with respect the blissful 10,000 years ahead. The other observation is this: it was Jewish prophets who were writing about their own rejection of their own Messiah: "He is despised and rejected of men... WE hid as it were, our faces from Him... but He was wounded for our transgressions" (Isaiah 53:3-5). Food for thought.

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    bass, I have greatly enjoyed it as well and I will be praying for you and look forward to posting with you in the future, believer

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Well, we both seem pretty satisfied where we are currently planted, which doesn't cause me any concern whatsoever, as we are both happy and have made our choices for presumably good reasons. I have enjoyed the discussion, believer. Thank you.

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    bass, having lived in Taiwan for two years, Holland for three years, and Italy for four years I do appreciate where you are coming from. But I think sometimes one can confuse concern with fear. If I see a person driving at a fast rate of speed toward a bridge that is out is it fear or concern that compels me to do all in my power to warn if not stop them from the inevitable. But when it comes to salvation if it is only fear of hell that causes one to become a "Christian" there is a possibility that they have not made a genuine profession of faith but as I said earlier only got a get out of hell free card which is worthless. True salvation is the result of a person desiring a personal relationship with God through Christ, no more and no less. So while true concern for others compels true believers to share God's plan of salvation, fear alone can save no one.

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:33 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    believer - That's the fear factor speaking again in the form of the old 'Pascal's wager'. It is exactly the fear that drives the faith, like I was talking about earlier. If I believed there was a reasonable probability of the eternal damnation scenario, I suppose it would be a strong factor to keep me in the flock, but I really don't. It's not a 50:50 sort of thing. The evidence points to that being a very unlikely scenario.

    And what do you loose? Well, if we're going to be true to the scriptures, your life. The gospels are pretty clear about that and that is exactly the sensation I had. The world is 'the world'...a carnal place. The world is a wonderful place! I have always loved the world, seeing every corner of it, meeting people from other places, eating their food (sometimes picking up some of their unfriendly bacteria in the process), learning their languages, learning about their faiths (without judging them or thinking that they are somehow unfortunate because they don't believe in mine). I have seen uncomparable kindness extended by people in Asia that haven't the slightest clue about the God of Abraham. I have an absolutely truer than true friend from India whose family is Hindu, he is an Atheist, and I can tell you without a doubt in my mind that he would throw himself in front of a train for me and I would do the same for him. Unconditional love is not the property of any faith or lack thereof. We are all capable of it as long as we see each other for the valuable human beings that each of us are, without labeling, without villifying, without demonizing. And in that sense, one could argue that those who don't adhere to the ancient religious texts (which are all quite tribal due to when the were penned) are more capable than those who do at extending unconditional love as there is no one/thing telling me that I can love my good friend, who happens to be gay, but must 'hate his sin', whatever that means. Do you see where I am coming from?

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    bass, others have asked me and maybe in the past you have, what if it's not true? What I tell them is this, number one I won't know since I will no longer exist, but at the same time I believe that by simply living a Christian life effectively, although not perfectly, makes life better for many we minister to in the here and now. My childhood was pretty messed up and I seldom received real unconditional love at home or other places, but since I became a Christian I've had numerous opportunities to unconditionally love others and especially kids like myself who are getting little if any anywhere else, so even if nothingness is real I believe I've lived a very fulfilling life by putting my faith/trust in this "hoax" called Christianity. But the concern I have for you and others is, but what if the Bible is totally true, is that a risk worth taking?

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer - Thanks for the honesty. And I know where you are coming from with the Christian message. It truly is an attractive one and I would be lying if I said that I hadn't felt the emotional side of that when I professed the faith. But I think that it is more of an emotional response to our need for unconditional love and desire to escape the inevitability of death than it is a real truth. We actually have more proof of nothingness after death (based on what we all know is true about our existence before birth) than we do for some form of eternal life in a reward or punishment situation (which appeals to our desire for justice more than any proof we have from anything...again, which makes more sense: to believe in a text that requires supernatural interpretations or in our own experience, which is that before we were born, we were, in fact, nothing...nonexistent). Maybe sounds nihilistic, but to me it isn't at all. I makes me live my life to the fullest, love the people around me, and enjoy their love for me while I can as I won't have that chance forever.

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    bass, I totally agree there unfortunately are many in the Christian community who lay it on heavy about eternal damnation to the point it can become cheap grace salvation message where people are only interested in getting a fire insurance policy or a get out of hell free card which won't save them. Don't get me wrong hell is a very real and horrible place, but the worst part about hell is not the unquenchable fire and total darkness, but rather eternal separation from God and all of His attributes. Imagine a place where there is no peace, love, joy or contentment and worse of all no hope that this will ever change. The story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abedego in the fiery furnace is a good example of what I'm talking about.
    And I will answer you question in total honesty, had this been in reference to any other religion you're totally correct in your unstated perception and this is why, true biblical Christianity is the only religion that shares the fact that God loved us enough that He allowed His only Son, Jesus Christ to come to this earth and die a horrible death on the Cross so that you and I might have the opportunity to become a child of God. And Jesus Christ was willing to lay aside His diety and take on the form of a man and come to this earth to pay a price that only He could pay so that through Him we might have a close intimate growing relationship with God for all eternity. No other religion can make that claim and while they may have good moral practices they in no way can guarantee us a home in heaven with God and most importantly they can't provide anyone with a personal relationship with God.

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer - Just out of curiosity, would your answer to my fishiness questions have been 'yes' if it were related to another religion? Be honest ;-)

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:56 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer - The three needs you list make sense. The approval/acceptance to me basically are one and fit into the concept I had put as 'unconditionally loved'. Although the 'life making a difference' bit is debatable. I think that has more to do with personality than anything. I know plenty of people who aren't too concerned about making a difference...they just want to enjoy life. And I don't mean in a hedonistic anything goes sort of way. Many devout Christians I know are that way too. I think that our desire to live forever (reflecting our supreme fear of death) is much more universal.

    And on that point I will respectfully disagree. Christianity, as much as people talk about it being built on love and a relationship with God, it leans heavily on the fear of death. It goes beyond saying you have to accept this to live forever...it says, you will live forever being charred to a crisp if you don't accept this. On the subject of infinity, another question: don't you find it strange that our 'souls' are supposedly infinite, but they have a starting point? None of us are at all bothered by the fact that we didn't exist a year before we were born. When people say, 'hey, do you remember back in '69, blah blah blah', I say, 'nope, sorry...wasn't born yet' without the slightest bit of remorse thinking, oh how awful to believe that before I was born (as compared to after I die) it was just nothingness. Christians take supreme offense when atheist suggest that there is no infinite afterlife, but don't even blink about the FACT that there is no infinite 'beforelife'. And we also know that infinity, by definition, has no starting point. Another poster was telling me that my 'worldview' was nihilistic. To me, it really is less about a so-called worldview than it is about simply looking at the facts honestly. In the absence of a 'beforelife' (and I think we can agree on that), how can anyone speak so boldly about my needing to get right with god before I stand before him in the afterlife?

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    bass, as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve there is a void in every human being which was filled by the presence of God prior to their sin. As a result three of the greatest needs of a human being are to be accepted, approved, and knowing their life made a difference. Too often times we buy into the lie that to meet the first two needs I must focus on accomplishing the third need, but God offers the only lasting solution to all three by calling us to repent and turn from our sins and turn to God by putting our complete faith/trust in the person and finished work of Christ alone. As a result we can know we are accepted and approved in His sight and we also learn that God not only created us on purpose but has a purpose for our lives which if we allow Him to work out that purpose in our life fulfills the need to know our life made a difference. As far as the other two points you made, too often times people think all Christianity is about is keeping people out of hell and while that is a consequence of becoming a Christian that is not God's primary reason for Him wanting people to become a Christian but rather it is about His desire to have a close intimate growing relationship with all of us which was made possible through the death of His Son on the Cross. As far as justice for all I truly believe that is a quality or characteristic of us being created in the image of God because God is a just God as well as a merciful God and we are all created in God's image.
    Just wanted to let you know I too am enjoying this upbeat discussion and appreciating your openness to hearing what is being shared!

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer/davidhall - Part II

    When we look at the monotheistic religions, not only Christianity, don't you find it striking that they all have a god that satisfies those three things specifically, but to Christians, Judeism and Islam are false, to Muslims the other two are, and so on? Don't you find it striking that in religious texts that were penned by humans but supposedly were inspired by god, there are unmistakeably human fingerprints everywhere? E.g. a creation story that is conspicuously like one from a neighboring ethnic group, full of similarities with mythical beliefs of all the people groups of the region of that time (such as man being created from the earth)...a creation story that clearly reflects primative minds who had no basic knowledge of nature so now, in light of the things we know about our world, we can only believe it if we close our eyes to the evidence all around us and say, 'yes, it doesn't make sense, but god can do anything'. But the god we are talking about is exactly the same one that those ancient texts are defining for us...the same ancient texts full of human fingerprints, human errors and human contradictions...and the definition of him satisfies not only those desires I listed above, but he satisfies it only for those he chooses, which just so happen to be the people that are writing the scriptures. The fact that god was filled all the base desires and, not only that, only did it for the ethnic group that was writing the scriptures defining him doesn't seem just a bit fishy to you? I know that for a Christian to allow himself to look skeptically at the Bible it is not easy because of the fear factor that David alluded to, but if I replaced some of the words in my questions above to reflect Islam, wouldn't your answer to the question about it all being fishy be a resounding 'YES'?

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:09 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer - Ahhhh Jethro Tull. Regardless of whatever differences we may have in our views about the existence of God, I think we could enjoy hanging out together. And I agree with you, I think that all humans have a tendency to create gods in our own image. And I think all religions, particularly the monotheistic three, have done exactly that. It is only now that I have stepped back from Christianity that I feel for the first time I am not.

    You and davidhall have given some good food for thought and I appreciate that (I also appreciate how neither of you act as though I am attacking you personally just because I don't necessarily share the same view...although we are absolutely in the same camp when it comes to Jethro Tull). But considering what you presented about man creating god in his own image and what David presented about accepting him while there is still time (fear...one of Christianity's greatest weapons), consider this: what are likely the three greatest desires we have as humans? I would argue that three good possibilities would be:

    (1) Avoiding death (our biggest fear);
    (2) Being loved unconditionally (our greatest desire); and
    (3) Seeing justice being done (good guys beat the bad guys).

    Seems like creating a god to meet those needs would make sense.

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:45 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Your welcome, Steve. I appreciate the dialogue. I am especially intrigued by your reference to mathematics which would quantify any substance as "infinitely" small. Once you have assigned a mathematical value to a known substance, however small, it is no longer infinite. This is what Albert Einstein discovered in 1916, recognizing by his calculations which applied to his theory of Relativity, that there was indeed a definite begining to all time, all matter, and all space. This flew in the face of his prior belief that the universe was static and eternal. He wanted the universe to be self-existent, not reliant on any outside Cause. Genesis 1:1 is still the most rational explanation for the giant EFFECT of the time (In the beginning), space (God created the heavens), and the earth (matter). Nothing else "adds up."

  • Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:11 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hello David, thank you for your reply. We are going in deep here but as I mentioned earlier the overall charge of the universe is 0. The energy of the universe that you speak about when all the + and - are added up is therefore zero. Cosmolgy can account for this zero energy being stuck in the form of matter due to the universe cooling from an infinate state, remember the smaller things get the greater the heat and energy available. The initial size of our universe iin its first moments(trillioths of a second, pre big bang) was much smaller than an atom, thats why at that point all mathmatical equations break down giving infinate answers.

  • Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Bass,

    Last correction! The word "to" should be "too", as in "forever too late."

  • Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Bass,

    I left out that important condition word "if" in my last post. What a difference a single word can make! The last line of my post should read, "Seek the Lord while He may be found," because IF you are thrust into eternity without a Savior, it will be forever to late to appeal to His mercy (Hebrews 9:27). Food for thought.

  • Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Bass,

    I also harbor some memories that tend to date me, such as the Blood, Sweat, and Tears song "And When I Die." Before I learned to reason with God (He invites us to do so in His call, "Come, let us reason together" -Isaiah 1:18) I was haunted by those lyrics, "I know there ain't no heaven [sic], and I pray there ain't no hell, but I'll never know by livin', only by dying I will tell." That, of course, will be forever to late to do us any good. Now I know, by the grace of God, that the absolute truth is knowable (John 8:31,32). God created our powers of reason, and then invited us to use them in honest search of His truth. He also commands us to use good reason in our defense of the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). God has not been silent or inactive. He plainly inserted His presence into time, space, matter continuum in which we live. He created this world in a fashion that exhibits His eternal power and Divine nature (Romans 1:20) and then lays a very simple, self-evident principle before you to build your logic upon: "Know you that the Lord, He is God. It is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves" (Psalm 100:3). That is, He identifies Himself as the All-Sufficient First Cause of humanity and the marvelously anthropic world in which we live. While His thoughts certainly transcend ours (Isaiah 55:9), as we would logically expect from omniscience, His thoughts do not contradict reason, or else He wouldn't expect us to reason together with Him. There is no argument to win here, just a gentle challenge to start with an honest, earnest "God, if You truly are there" kind of prayer, and He will open your eyes to see how inconsistent it is to think that mindless chance could have brought us into existence, and how He will manifest Himself to those who will humbly seek Him. "Seek the Lord while He may be found," because you are thrust into eternity without a Savior, it will be forever to late to appeal to His mercy (Hebrews 9:27). Food for thought.

  • Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    bass, one of my favorite albums of all-time is Aqualung by Jehtro Tull, it came out very shortly after I became a Christian and even though many Christians don't like it I do, because it tells the truth of what so many people do with God. On the album cover it says, "In the beginning man created God in his own image..." and that is exactly what many people do Christians and non-Christians alike. I believe in a sense that's what you may be doing trying to explain God and God's behavior from your point of view rather than allow God to be God and realize as the Word of God says are thoughts are not His thoughts which means He chooses to do things that totally make no sense to our way of thinking and that totally operate outside of the very laws of nature and physics that He created in the first place. So for me it comes down to this, do I trust God and allow God to be God or do I try to squeeze Him into the box of human understanding based on the laws of nature and physics and so on. And for me I choose the former based on the fact that His most awesome decision totally violates human thinking and understanding more than any of His other decisions combined when He sent and allowed His Son, Jesus Christ to go all the way to the Cross and take upon Himself all the sins of the world, past, present, and future and all the penalty associated with those sins, so that we could have the opportunity to become a child of God by turning from our sin and putting our complete faith/trust in the person and finished work of Christ alone!

  • Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Steve, the First Law of Thermodynamics observes exactly what the Scripture has stated: "Whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him" (Eccles. 3:14). This may not, from your point of view, disprove evolution, but it certainly demonstrates that your molecules-to-mankind theory cannot even get started unless you beg the question of how all this available energy arrived in the closed system of our universe. Mindless Chance or Mighty Creator? I do not have enough faith to believe the first option. The Second Law applies to the whole universe, though there have been ingenious mechanisms designed in our biospher to harness the sun's energy into a specifically complex programmed growth, such as a tree. Keep your Nobel Prize. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the causality argument favors Creation.

  • Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You're absolutely right, Prophet. I don't.

  • Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Bass,

    "Why in his creation of nature would he break the very laws of nature he was creating? That is even more illogical than the creation story itself!"

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    Like when Jesus gave sight to the blind, healed the lame man and the lepers, raised the dead to life, walked on water, calmed the raging storm, caused the fig tree to wither, walked through walls, appear and disappear instantaneously, etc, etc, etc.

    If you can't believe the creation story, you can't believe in Jesus.

  • Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer - I am not a scientist either, but that is part of my point...you don't need to be one to see straight through the creation story (and David, it isn't even remotely logical...read A Brief History of Time to get some background about what we have evidence to prove to be true about the universe and the Genesis story cannot be seen as anything more than a myth). It is indeed at that point we must choose to accept the evidence or ignore it by saying that God can do the impossible. But why would he? Why in his creation of nature would he break the very laws of nature he was creating? That is even more illogical than the creation story itself!

  • Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:40 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hello David

    I'm going to answer like this, just because it's easier, no other reason

    "The First Law of Thermodynamics observes that all energy is constant ; nothing can be added or taken away from it quantitatively."

    (I'd like to add here that we are talking about available enrgy within the universe, it stays constant. Its intresting to note that overall the charge of the entire universe is 0)

    Whats this got to do with evolution? Explain to me how evolution breaks this law ,how is energy added or taken away from/to the universe by the process of eveolution, if you can show it does, believe me, you are up for a Nobel prize, and you will desereve it.

    "The Second Law states that as time progresses, energy moves to a LESS complex, randomness; exactly the opposite of what the evolutionary theory demands"

    Not at all, within local systems, as long as energy can be introduced to a system (from another one, we are not talking "new" energy as such)for a period of time which can be seconds or billions of years, complexity can increase until the energy disepates. Take the weather, some some local systems can be simple but add energy from the Sun or the oceans and comlexity increases for a while, your not suggesting that weather breaks this law are you?. Energy to drive evolution comes ultimately from the Sun and various chemical processes on the Earth that store and release energy such as in the cell. This is why for this period of time the second law does not hold, though ultimately it will.

    By the way, the theory of evolution by natural selcetion does not demand complexity arises, what it does is observe (there is a diffrence) that complexity can arise within organisms by changes in enviroment.

    BW

    Steve

  • Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Steve,

    God, who brought time, space, and energy into existence spoke into existence light. Since neither you or I were there when He did so, God remains the single Eyewitness Authority on the matter. It just so happens that He stated that His Spirit was upon the face of the waters; to be sure, the sun and stars were not needed since He did not deem them necessary. The First Law of Thermodynamics observes that all energy is constant; nothing can be added or taken away from it quantitatively. The Second Law states that as time progresses, energy moves to a LESS complex, randomness; exactly the opposite of what the evolutionary theory demands, but exactly conforming to predictive pattern of special creation.

  • Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hello David

    Three things.

    Re causality and the universe. I'm not entering into the realm of anything can happen I'm just showing that the everyday experience of cause and effect ceases to have any meaning what so ever under very diffrent circumstances to which we humans experience on a day to day basis. It's something those who talk about logic forget because the everyday experiences is what they base it on but maths and physics point in a completly diffrent direction.

    Not sure how those two laws of thermodymamics preclude evolution. Glad you are not on my jury.

    The God is light thing. The light that would have bathed the Earth and plants etc..for there to be day and night is part of the electromagnectic spectrum (I'm sure we are in agreement with this) that we with our eyes can view,are you therefore saying God is part of the electromagnectic spectrum? I would take it that saying God is light is an allegory and not the position you take as the electromagnectic spectrum is part of the universe and God is not. By saying that light that bathed the Earth was God you go beyond the scriptures and enter the world of conjecture, nothing else. But taking a literal view you have no other choice.

    S

  • Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    dh, I agree with what you shared about God and light, but my point to bass was that I can't explain but I can and do choose to believe it! But I do appreciate and agree with what you shared on the matter.

  • Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Steve,

    Anyone can postulate about anything when you remove the bounds of causality, entering into the unlimited imaginative realm of "possible doubt" rather than "reasonable doubt." Those two concepts were carefully outlined during my last jury duty. We were not allowed to entertain "possible doubt", but we must, on the evidential basis of reasonalbe doubt, acquit the accused. Science is all about cause and effect, and the predictions based upon those principles. The observable first and second laws of energy (quantitative conservation and qualitative entropy, respectively) are adqequate to dismiss the faulty theory of evolution, if the scientific method is objectively allowed in the courtroom of exhibits that God has set before us.

  • Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    David

    "Causality requires something greater than nature to bring nature into "

    Not really. Cosmolgy postualtes (with good reason) that the universe,just prior to the big bang (remember the big bang occurs "after" the universe comes into existenece, it is not the cause) was much smaller than an atom and that the four interations which run the universe where as one, unlike today in our universe with it's energy level. In these conditions of infinate energy, heat etc.. there is no time, before and after have no meaning, causality as we understand it our universe ceases to have any meaning, well thats wrong in a way as it never even exists.

    Steve

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links