Ten Plagues

Archeology in the past 30 years has reduced the historical probability of the Exodus from slim to none. There is not a lick of proof of the destination of Exodus. Even though we should have extensive amounts of evidence of an invasion of Hebrews into Canaan, we have none. No proof for the Exodus itself. We have evidence of nomads crossing the desert, but nothing of 2 million (or 20,000 if you prefer the variant reading) wandering about this area.

We have no proof, no archeological fact, not a single historical writing that the beginning of the Exodus occurred—the Ten Plagues. Using the very familiar “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” Christians often claim that the reason there is no evidence is that the Egyptians would not record these events as embarrassing, or as a cover-up for their incompetence.

The problem is—these events would have too large of an impact--politically, militarily, economically and socially, to have covered them up. Have you ever read the story of the Plagues and thought about the results in the society? Egypt would have been wiped off the map! The Ten Plagues could not have happened as recorded in the book of Exodus.

First of all, the length of time between plagues is not recorded. Did this happen over one year? Did it happen over a period of years? Depending on the convenience of the apologists, opinions differ. The impression given is that this happened in a short period of time. We have seven days between the first and second plague. There is the implication that within the same harvest time some grain is not wiped up, and subsequently it is wiped out. On the other hands, animals keep re-appearing, after having been allegedly killed off on previous plagues, which would imply this was over longer periods of time.

If it happened in a short time, as we will see, all Egyptians would be dead. If over a longer period of time, more archeological evidence and writing would have happened and didn’t. Either proposition is difficult.

Secondly, there is a question as to how far-reaching these plagues were. When it says “every” is that just exaggeration for “quite a bit”? Were they localized? The problem with this proposition is that God intended this to be a demonstration of His glory. A local sickness, killing a few cows, or a bad summer storm would not be remarkable. If the Christian wants this tale to be the jumping-off point for the establishment of Israel, it would have to be more than a few bugs.

To say, “This was so grand that God provided a way for 2 Million people to exit Exodus” and then follow up with “but it wasn’t all that as recorded in the book” is to want one’s cake and eat it too!

Finally, there are substantial reasons to determine these stories are allegories—never happened. For purposes of this particular blog, I am addressing those Christians that hold these were historical facts, and asking them to think about the implications.

Water to Blood The Nile, every stream, every river, every pond, even water stored in vessels turns to blood. 7:19. (All verses from Exodus.)

First of all this would mean the loss of drinking water. The Bible notes this problem. 7:24. How does one transport the water from rivers and streams inland? The effort must be made to dig new wells, then transport it. This could not be done in any short time at all. We still have images of victims of Hurricane Katrina, and the water problem of New Orleans. This is in an industrialized nation, with motor vehicles, planes, boats, and organizations specifically designed to respond to these types of needs. We have stored water, and could transport water from other locations. ALL of the water in Egypt turned to blood. They had no reserves. There would be a loss of life due to dehydration.

Secondly, while there would be alternative drinking sources (milk, juice, even wine) concentration would be placed on re-obtaining water itself. This would bring any industry to a halt, as people would be concentrating on the water problem, and not the work at hand.

But most important would be the loss of marine life. The fish (and other sea creatures) died. 7:21. Later, this will have in impact as to a food source. Environmental water systems, such as rivers, ponds and streams, have a necessary balance. By wiping out all of the fish, this balance would be irrevocably upset. It is not as if the blood turned back to water, and fish all of a sudden re-appeared. They were gone. It would take decades, if ever, for marine life to replenish and re-habit the rivers.

Birds that relied upon the fish for food would migrate or die. Crocodiles that relied upon the birds and fish for food would look to alternative sources. Every creature, dependant on marine life, would find alternatives, leave, or die.

Arguably, this would be enough to cripple Egypt. And we are on the first one!

Frogs, flies, boils and darkness While none of these plagues would be necessarily deadly; they would bring the economy of Egypt to a halt. There would be no building projects. No working in the fields. No fishing (as if there were fish), no transportation, no commerce, no trading. Interspersed among the other plagues, the fact that the nation was immobilized would result in only a few deaths, but would be crippling to its economy.

Anyone caught in the August 2003 blackout of North East America is familiar with how industry can come to an immediate halt. Again, even in an industrialized nation, a little thing like no electricity caused entire states to come to a standstill, and caused a ripple effect across America, regarding transportation and industry. Imagine the results in 15th Century BCE Egypt!

Death of Livestock The beginning of the terrible plagues. Every Egyptian cow, horse, donkey, oxen, camel and sheep are killed. This would cause devastating problems in a variety of areas. In transportation, every thing would have to be done on foot. Any heavy lifting or tilling of the ground would come to a standstill. The bodies would have to be buried (under dead frog carcasses, if they were still around).

But most importantly would be the loss of meat. While the Egyptians could live on grains, fruits and stores, animals would be necessary for protein input. (Don’t forget, we already lost all our fish.) Wild game would be the only option, and would start to be hunted with a vengeance.

There are no babies to grow into the next generation of animals, no cycle of life happening. The Egyptians would be forced to turn to outside sources to obtain new animals—both fully grown, as well as young to replenish the stock.

At this point, we would see a huge influx of Egyptian goods being traded to outside countries for their animals. An outpouring of gold, weapons, pottery, farm goods, rope, anything to replace these animals. While there would already be some trafficking of animals, nothing on the scale to provide animals for all of Egypt! Traders would be desperately attempting to get animals from neighboring countries, to sell to the Egyptians for ten times the price.

This is not a matter of weeks, or months, but rather years to attempt to replace a portion of these animals. Imagine being an Egyptian farmer in the interior of Egypt, and you just lost 10 sheep. How do you replace them? By the time you walk to the border, every other person has arrived before you, bartering for sheep. The price is exorbitant; more than you can ever afford. Within a day or two, there are no longer any sheep even for sale.

But you hear a rumor of more sheep coming in. So you wait a week. As more traders come in, more people arrive, and the princely sums paid the first days appear to be bargains now. Another week, another week. Every sheep is snatched up if even a bleat is heard. Egyptians start traveling farther to cut-off the traders.

After a few months, you realize that you will not be able to afford sheep this year. No more coming in, all have been bought. You go back and hope for next year. Or the year after that, maybe. But you probably won’t live that long—look what is coming next.

Hail Wipes out many of the animals that were just obtained from other countries, some servants, and much of the crops. 9:25. Again, the prices of animals would skyrocket from already unobtainable prices. Traders already completely depleted would see repeat customers begging for more.

Other nations could not help salivating at the ripe plum Egypt had become for capture. Extremely diminished, if any cavalry. No chariots to speak of. People desperate. Rioting over a caught sparrow. All efforts concentrating on survival, not production.

And for the animals that are left, what do you feed them? People have no meat, and now have no grain to eat. Stealing would be rampant. Any laws would break down at this point, and enforcement would be impossible. Stores would be rampaged and emptied. The officials indicate how bad this is by claiming that Egypt is destroyed. 10:7

Now the traders would be aware that it was grain that was in high demand. All the animal auction tents would be immediately converted to grain auction tents. The prices would go up.

And people would starve.

Locusts A killer. Every single plant is gone; nothing green is left. 10:15. (Note: this would have done within the same harvest as the hail. 10:12)

The few animals left would have nothing to eat. They would die. What would the people eat? There is no marine life. No wild animals now. No cattle, sheep, or even pigeons. But more importantly, no grain. No fruits. No vegetables.

The only food source possible would be from outside sources or roots dug up. The riches of Egypt, gold statutes, gold plates, weapons, anything of value would literally pour out of Egypt. Due to the amounts that could be charged for just a handful of wheat, the poor would die. The rich would soon be the poor.

Those in the interior of Egypt would not have access to the trading from other countries. They would be limited by transportation. Traders at the exterior of Egypt could not get stores from nearby countries fast enough to keep people from starving. We would see a mass migration away from Egypt at this point—people leaving to go into any other country just to eat grass and live.

Reflect where we are at. There was a lack of water for a period, causing dehydration. Then frogs, gnats and boils, causing sickness, and limiting commerce. A loss of animals, causing a loss of food source, and significant transportation problems. Any animals replaced are killed. All vegetation wiped out. No food, sickness about, weakness within the people the social structure, the economy, the military and economy.

Tenth Plague The firstborn of every family dies. Including the firstborn of the livestock. (Where do these animals keep coming from? And to the point of having firstborns?) Every single home in Egypt has someone die. 12:30.

This would be completely demoralizing. We have had mass deaths already from sickness and starvation. An additional death in every household. The nation would crumble. Frankly, taken literally, I would not see how there would be that many people even alive in Egypt at this point, as it was.

Oddly, the book records that the Hebrews asked the Egyptians for gold, silver and clothing, and since the Egyptians were favored toward the Hebrews, they just gave it up. 12:35-36. After reading what the plagues were doing, does this make any sense at all?

Army wiped out Although technically not a plague, it is an important event that happened immediately on the heels of these national tragedies, that would further demonstrate how Egypt would no longer be in existence if the Plagues happened as recorded.

Pharaoh pursues the Hebrews with all of his army, all the chariots and horsemen (where DO those horses keep coming from?), and his captains. 14:9. And they are wiped out. 14:28.

At this point, there is no military defense to a crippled nation. Remember, the Philistines were right next door, and were so warlike not even YHWH wanted to take them on. 13:17. And to top this all off, the Egyptians lose a slave labor force.

Can anyone take this literally? We have massive death, economic ruin, military exterminated, society destroyed, and yet what do we see when reviewing the Egyptian history? Nothing. Not a thing. Not a blip, not a burp, not even a hiccup. No massive graves. Egyptian goods stay in Egypt. The military remains a powerful force. Marine life, harvest, livestock all remain as they were.

Even assuming the Egyptians desired to eliminate the history by not recording it, the effects would be evident. If God did it to demonstrate his Glory, then he immediately removed all traces of it happening. Removed all the bodies. Replaced all the animals. Took the gold/silver from the traders and replaced it in Egyptian coffers. Restored the military. Re-established the society.

Is that what Christians are saying happened? A miracle that, once recorded in people’s minds, all effects were miraculously removed?

OR, is it more likely this is a story. A legend. In stories and legends, we don’t have to worry about the effects. We can introduce animals, or remove animals as necessary. We can “wipe out an entire crop” and not worry about what the actual results of such actions would be. It is a story.

Babinski's Web-icles, A Short List

Please forgive me for not posting often. I read far more than I write these days, and have plenty of other things that fill up my time. However, if anyone would like to catch up on some of my past web-icles that explain in detail why I doubt Christianity, below is a short list.

Let me preface the list with a statement found in a work edited by Bruce Metzger, a textual scholar who is held in high esteem by many of his fellow Evangelical Christians. Note that Metzger was one of the main editors in the reference work I cite that admits that none of the four canonical Gospels featured the names of their authors when they were first composed. They were originally anonymous works and only many decades after they were written did they receive their “names” such as the Gospels of "Matthew," "Mark," "Luke" and "John."

For instance, the Gospel of Luke, does not name "Luke" as its author, and only names the person for whom that Gospel was allegedly written, i.e., "Theophilus." Likewise the Gospel of John is anonymous and says in chapter 20 simply that "we" testified/wrote it, while chapter 21 says it was the "beloved disciple" who was its author/testifier. Note that chapters 20 and 21 of that Gospel feature their own ending verses as if to suggest that the Gospel may have originally ended with chapter 20, and the unsatisfying claim that an unnamed "we" wrote it, so another chapter arose and was added to lend the Gospel individual apostolic authority but still of an anonymous nature since the "beloved disciple" was not named.

At any rate, note the admissions below in a standard scholarly Biblical reference work edited by at least one Evangelical. We certainly are not speaking of inerrant claims as to who wrote the Gospels, and that alone should make one wary of attempting to squeeze unquestionable dogmas or unquestionable history out of them:

“Not only did Jesus himself write nothing, but the attribution of the gospels to his disciples did not occur until the late first century at the earliest. . .

‘Matthew: Written by an unknown Jewish Christian of the second generation, probably a resident of Antioch in Syria.

‘Mark: [There is] confusion in the traditional identification of the author . . .

‘Luke: Possibly written by a resident of Antioch and an occasional companion of the apostle Paul.

‘John: Composed and edited in stages by unknown followers of the apostle John, probably residents of Ephesus.’

--Kingsbury, J.D., “Matthew, The Gospel According to,” in Metzger and Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the Bible [Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1993], pp. 502-506

To learn more about my reasons for leaving the fold, especially reasons for doubting "the resurrection" stories, I include a list of links below. I also consider the many dubious "prophecies" in the New Testament another good reason to doubt the veracity of the Bible.

Letter On The Resurrection Written to Apologist Dr. Gary Habermas of Liberty University (An Evangelical friend agreed I had raised some "knotty problems," while Habermas asked an Evangelical publisher about possibly publishing a dialogue between us--though the publisher's response was 'No.')

Letter I Received From Producer of Lee Stroble's "Faith Under Fire" And My Response Concerning Historical Criticism of the Bible

Scholars Comment on N.T. Wright's Resurrection Arguments

Additional Reviews of N.T. Wright's Resurrection Book by Scholars

The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus [article by Dr. Robert M. Price]

Literary Criticism and Historical Accuracy of the Gospels, Including a Discussion of the Alleged Words Spoken by the Resurrected Jesus That Grew In Number With Each New Gospel, Or That Were Simply Added As in Mark's Three Additional Late Endings

C.S. Lewis’ “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism”

The "Born Again" Dialogue In the Gospel of John [a point made by Bart Ehrman]

Newsweek Defends Resurrection as History in Newsweek's Easter issue, March 28th, 2005

Agnosticism: Reasons to Leave Christianity

What Happened to the Resurrected Saints?Raising doubts not saints.

More About the Resurrected Saints

The Christian Think Tank's Response to Questions Concerning "The Many Resurrected Saints"

The Lowdown on God's Showdown

The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah [not by me, though I suggested some books the author employed in his research and for which he thanked me]

Not One, But Mutiple Views Of Biblical Writers On The Afterlife

The Former Popularity among Christians of The Abominable Fancy, or, A Heaven that only "Snuff Film" Aficionados Could Love

Is the Book of Revelation a Literary Patchwork Quilt? (Including a Discussion of the First Book of Enoch)

Or read Dr. Price's Beyond Born Again (a sort of warm up book to be read before the rest of Price's writings, written while he was still a liberal Christian)

Leaving my own work for last, Leaving the Fold.

Ed

My Encounter With Calvinism

I encountered Calvinism and studied it during the time of my life when I was an Evangelical born again Christian, i.e., having met a theologically conservative Calvinist who shared with me Rushdooney’s, Van Til’s and Gordon Clark’s works published by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. I even made two “pilgrimages” to Westminster Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania during this period (Westminster Theological Seminary was founded by a former theologian at Princeton Theological Seminary who left that seminary in protest during the "fundamentalist/modernist" controversies of the early 20th century), where I caught a fleeting glance of Cornelius Van Til, talked with a few students, and spent most of my time picking out books in their bookstore. You might think that I would have trouble getting along with those who believed with certainty that miracles (like the gift of tongues) ended during the age of the apostles, and who handed out tracts that stated on the front in bold print, MOURN! GOD HATES YOU! But Calvinism intrigued and even interested me very much at that time.

I attended my friend's "Reformed Anglican" church [a conservative Calvinistic denomination] twice and spoke briefly with his minister. What a “solid” faith, I thought. God “made some vessels for eternal honor and made others for eternal dishonor” simply to bring glory to Himself and demonstrate His eternal “compassion” and eternal “justice.” After the Fall "free will" was just a word (as Calvin and Luther taught). Conversion was up to God. He either bestowed upon people the “gift of saving faith,” or denied it and damned them eternally. In a sense it was a relief, knowing that you were not responsible for anyone else’s salvation. You did not have to plead with anyone, nor devise clever gimmicks to entice them toward the faith as utilized by many Christian youth ministries. [sic] The “absoluteness” of God’s will was emphasized. If someone did not agree, such was God’s will, let them be damned. It was also a demanding faith for those already in it. They had to avoid unclean associations, i.e., anything that might intrude on the “purity” of their theology and behavior. From thence have arisen “Reconstructionist” and "Dominion" Christian movements, consisting of people who would like to see ancient Hebrew laws like the Ten Commandments enforced rather than the Ten Amendments of our present Constitution. (Such folks would apparently rejoice to live in a country were the First Amendment's quarantee of religious freedom was replaced by the First Commandment's "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," under penalty of death.)

I left Calvinism behind after realizing that, unlike the believers I had met, I could

1) Not relinquish the “non-elect” to God’s eternal "justice.” I admitted honestly to myself that heaven would not be heaven for me if such a thing were true.

2) Nor could I conceive of any reasonably good being maintaining an eternal concentration camp.

3) Nor did it seem to me that the doctrine of “total depravity" (both spiritual and mental) of all the "non-elect" appeared true.

4) Nor did the Calvinist rationalization appear true that any and all righteous (and rationally cognizant) behavior manifested by the non-elect was merely “common grace,” without which the world would be a “living hell.”

Speaking of which, why must God's love and even God's "common grace," run out if it was so "common" to begin with? Especially taking into consideration the promise in 1 Corinthians 13 that love was "long suffering," "not jealous," "keeps no record of wrongs," "covers all things," "has faith for all things," "hopes in all things," "endures in all things," and "never fails," but "remains?" (Which is not to deny that true believers have their own ways of attempting to "reconcile" every "question" the Bible's diverse teachings raise, including the above. They wouldn't be true believers if they couldn't accomplish such reconciliations at least in their own eyes. *smile*)

To put some of the questions above in especially stark contrast, take these two dark quotations from the Reformation's two most prominent fathers:

“This is the highest degree of faith, to believe him merciful when he saves so few and damns so many, and to believe him righteous when by his own will he makes us necessarily damnable, so that he seems, according to Erasmus, 'to delight in the torments of the wretched and to be worthy of hatred rather than of love.' If, then, I could by any means comprehend how this God can be merciful and just who displays so much wrath and iniquity, there would be no need of faith.” [Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will. Luther’s Works, Vol. 33. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972, p. 62-63.]

I agreed that worshipping a God who “seemed to delight in the torture of the wretched” would take more faith than I had. Not to mention what Calvin had to say:

“Whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God?... The decree is dreadful [horribile] indeed, I confess.” [Calvin, John. The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book II, chapter xxiii, section 7]

Again, I had to agree, "horribile." Interestingly, I found an ally at that time in C. S. Lewis who appeared to be arguing against such views when he wrote:

“[There are dangers in judging God by moral standards, but] believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery calling Him ‘good’ and worshipping Him, is still greater danger... The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scripture is to prevail when they conflict." [Lewis was replying to the Biblical accounts of what he called “the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua” and the account of Peter striking Ananias and Sapphira dead, called ‘Divine’ decrees by those who believe Scripture is without error.-ED.]

Lewis continued: "I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible… To this some will reply ‘ah, but we are fallen and don’t recognize good when we see it.’ But God Himself does not say we are as fallen as all that. He constantly in Scripture appeals to our conscience: ‘Why do ye not of yourselves judge what is right?’—‘What fault hath my people found in me?’ And so on."

“Things are not good because God commands them; God commands certain things because he sees them to be good. (In other words, the Divine Will is the obedient servant to the Divine Reason.)... If [on the other hand] ‘good’ simply means ‘what[ever] God wills’ then to say ‘God is good’ can mean only ‘God wills what he wills.’ Which is equally true of you or me or Judas or Satan.” [Lewis in letters to John Beversluis]

Lewis put matters succinctly in A Grief Observed:

“The real danger is of coming to believe such dreadful things about Him. The conclusion I dread is not ‘So, there’s no God after all,’ but, ‘So, this is what God is really like. Deceive yourself no longer.’"

Even J. P. Holding of Tektonics apologetics, who defends every act of suffering and slaughter directed or performed by God in the Bible in a relatively inerrant fashion, admits that he can no longer believe in hell as a place of eternal "torture." Though Calvin wrote about hell being a place of inconceivable torment, being buffetted about by God's wrath for eternity.

Indeed, besides the lovely notion of "infant damnation" which was agreed upon for centuries by the most prominent Lutherans, Calvinists and Catholics, all three groups also appear to have agreed upon the idea of the righteous being overjoyed at the sight of the damned in hell suffering. Orthodox Calvinists and Catholics both defended such a belief for centuries. Such a view was later derided by being called "The Abominable Fancy.")

As for any replies that the description of my personal encounter with Calvinism might receive, I leave my Calvinist friends (or my true believer friends of whatever stripe) with these words:

“The silly fanatic repeats to me... that it is not for us to judge what is reasonable and just in the great Being, that His reason is not like our reason, that His justice is not like our justice.

"Eh?!

"How, you mad demoniac, do you want me to judge justice and reason otherwise than by the notions I have of them? Do you want me to walk otherwise than with my feet, and to speak otherwise than with my mouth?”

[Voltaire, of course]

A Hoax?

The people at Triablogue are having the last laugh. First they did a parody of people at The Secular Outpost (scroll down or search for “Triablogue: Flippant dismissals,” and “The plot thickens...,” where they also did one of us here at DC, Flippant Dismissals . Recently they did one of themselves You Heard it First From Me, where they claimed their own Blog is a hoax.

Another atheist website has asked aloud if this DC Blog is a hoax. Thankfully they decided on their own that it isn’t.

-------------
Added note: This atheist site, Godis4Suckers, has retitled their original post from "Is Debunking Christianity a Hoax?" to the present one where they claim Triablogue is lying about us. But I still say Triablogue is not trying to spread lies about us, another misrepresentation by this atheist site, they were just poking some fun at us. There is enough to attack Christian thinking about that we do not need to misrepresent what they intended.
---------------

Let me say a few things. In the progression of my thought from Christian Apologist to Atheist I went through several stages. I became a liberal Christian, then a Deist, then an Agnostic, and finally an Atheist. This should surprise no one, since that’s what typically happens as one continues to travel down the road of doubt. In my earlier book I described myself as an Existential Deist and I wrote as one. I initially wrote it to explain to people who knew me why I was no longer a Christian. What I didn’t expect is the attention it would get because I am a former student of William Lane Craig’s. And I took a lot of flack from Christians on discussion groups and sites because they didn’t like my book or that I came out with it. As I continued to think through the issues and discussed things with believers and non-believers, I finally became an atheist. So I extensively revised my book. It is so different in the depth of arguments presented, and the topics I discuss, and even the tone itself, that I renamed it: Why I Rejected Christianity.

Triablogue was probably just poking fun--that is all--and I don't mind having a little fun either. Although, Christians on the web try to discredit atheists as much as they can, so if taken that way, they just did what they repeatedly seem to do to atheists. When they cannot answer our arguments they try to discredit us. And they are trying to make a point about the gullibility of we atheists. Don’t buy into it.

If this site is a hoax, what is it a hoax about? That the contributors listed on the sidebar are not really contributors? What would convince you? Ed Babinski and I asked that Farrell Till and Dan Barker join as contributors to help add some more credibility to our site, okay? Whether they actually post much is to be seen, but I suspect that with the controversy they will. But would that convince anyone? This site is not a hoax. We really do exist as the people we say we are. And the people who prefer to be nameless are really there too. We're not mythic--last time I checked! :-) [As far as the supposed dead-end links go, let us know where they are and we'll try to fix them. Sometimes it's merely the Blogger mainframe itself.]

By the way, if according to Christianity our salvation and/or damnation depends so much on getting at the truth, and we all (atheists and believers) come to such a wide diversity of opinions on what someone writes, even in today’s world when we can check them out, or even if the people themselves exist, or if they are presenting a hoax, then it doesn’t offer we humans much hope of getting at the truth at all.

Even though that atheist site is wrong about us, and they are, I still prefer their kind of skepticism to the gullibility of Christians who believe in fairy tales of miraculous events among superstitious people. So to them I say, keep on keeping on…..

Now, back to our regularly scheduled debates…... where any intelligent comment is welcomed.

Question: Does Faith or Religious Activity Improve Health?

Kaffinator gave us two questions in the comments section, which I am dealing with separately. One deals with health and religion, while the other deals with charity and religion.

Question 1:

Mr. Atheist, if you had your wish and all of the Christians in the United States suddenly joined you, the result would be that ... Many more people would experience depression and high blood pressure, placing a greater drain on the health-care system. Americans in general would suffer a massive loss in life expectancy. I'm sure I could go on.

So here is my question. What kind of warped morality would wish this upon a nation?

If Kaff was correct in his fundamental premise, it may indeed be more ethical to promote churchgoing, regardless of its core truth value, simply to decrease pain and suffering. Unfortunately for all of us, no evidence of such magic exists.

"A large US study found that religious folk had lower blood pressure, less depression and anxiety, stronger immune systems and generally cost the health-care system less than people who were less involved in religion." [link]
This has to be one of the most bankrupt studies I've ever read. Can anyone say, cum hoc, ergo propter hoc? you know, they say that those people who carry matches in their pocket tend to get lung cancer more, so we ought to speak out about carrying matches as a risk for cancer, right? [roll eyes]

Let's look at the abstract:
METHODS: A probability sample of 3,968 community-dwelling adults aged 64-101 years residing in the Piedmont of North Carolina was surveyed in 1986 as part of the Established Populations for the Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly (EPESE) program of the National Institutes of Health. Attendance at religious services and a wide variety of sociodemographic and health variables were assessed at baseline. Vital status of members was then determined prospectively over the next 6 years (1986 1992). Time (days) to death or censoring in days was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS: During a median 6.3-year follow-up period, 1,777 subjects (29.7%) died. Of the subjects who attended religious services once a week or more in 1986 (frequent attenders), 22.9% died compared to 37.4% of those attending services less than once a week (infrequent attenders). The relative hazard (RH) of dying for frequent attenders was 46% less than for infrequent attenders (RH: 0.54, 95% CI 0.48-.0.61), an effect that was strongest in women (RH 0.51, CI 0.434).59) but also present in men (RH 0.63, 95% CI 0.52-0.75). When demographics, health conditions, social connections, and health practices were controlled, this effect remained significant for the entire sample (RH 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-.81), and for both women (RH 0.65, 95% CI 0.554-.76, p<.0001) and men (RH 0.83, 95% CI 0.69-1.00, p=.05). CONCLUSIONS: Older adults, particularly women, who attend religious services at least once a week appear to have a survival advantage over those attending services less frequently.
First, note the p-value = 5 for men, and less than 0.0001 for women, which immediately raises an intelligent person's eyebrows. The authors comment that males are much less likely to attend religious services, yet, this effect is least pronounced in males??

The p-value is a measure of statistical reliability of any correlative study. There should be no significant difference between the sexes if the variable studied is the causative factor. Second, note that they made no concession for AGE!. Think about this for a minute, if you are still attending church, whether 50 or 100, do you kind of think...you're in better health than the BEDRIDDEN friend of yours? Christian or not? 50 or 101? Well, it sounds good at first, and then, the more you think about it, people with arthritis of the hip won't die tomorrow, but can't attend services, while those with fine walkin' skills and Jeebus-lovin' skills still go to church, but have a bad heart, which pops on em at 50...hmmmm...

This is a terrible study, and the follow-up researchers who cited this study agreed:
see Risk Factors, Confounding, and the Illusion of a Statistical Control, Psychosomatic Medicine, v66 i6 p868 (2001)

You apparently didn't read the follow-up study by the same authors, did you? See, this prelim was published in 1999, and when their methodology flaws were pointed out to them, they decided to go back and try again. Funnier still, the follow-up by the same authors admitted:
During a median 6.3-year follow-up period, 1,137 subjects (29.5%) died. Those reporting rarely to never participating in private religious activity had an increased relative hazard of dying over more frequent participants, but this hazard did not remain significant for the sample as a whole after adjustment for demographic and health variables. When the sample was divided into activity of daily living (ADL) impaired and unimpaired, the effect did not remain significant for the ADL impaired group after controlling for demographic variables (hazard ratio [RH] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91–1.35). However, the increased hazard remained significant for the ADL unimpaired group even after controlling for demographic and health variables (RH 1.63, 95% CI 1.20–2.21), and this effect persisted despite controlling for numerous explanatory variables including health practices, social support, and other religious practices (RH 1.47, 95% CI 1.07–2.03).

In plain English, once these educated idiots realized their study was flawed, and went back and fixed the uncontrolled variables (comparing bedridden people who may or may not wish to go to church, and/or who may or may not have gone until becoming bedridden, at the age of 101, with a healthy 60 year old, is about the dumbest study I've ever seen), they found, guess what? That the activity of daily living was more important than anything else. Surprise surprise. So, whether grandma is out gardening or praising Jeebus in church, she, SHOCKER, is statistically more likely to be healthier than someone who does neither (often, because they can't). Man, whatta GD study, a real charlie foxtrot. In their own words, admitting this:
A study by Koenig and coworkers demonstrated that an ill, elderly population may not be able to overcome the force of impending mortality even when employing various behaviors that have been shown in healthy populations to correlate with extended survival (42 [this is the study that the BBC article you linked to cited]). It is possible that the relatively subtle effects of private religious activity are not sufficient to overcome the overwhelming force exerted on mortality by health decline to the point of ADL impairment. Thus, the milder effects of private religious activities on mortality are more detectable among those persons who are relatively healthy. Future studies may want to ask how long a person has been engaged in private religious activity, to determine if habits begun after the onset of ADL impairment are begun too late to show a survival benefit.

Beautiful, eh? If they're really bad off, Kaff, don't try to look for Jeebus' help. Also, never mind the social support and friendships and human networking that come with churchgoing, which often explains away the "milder effects", without invoking your Magic Man.

Swedish scientists studying an overview of these kinds of studies conclude:
Our analyses reveal that most domains of activities are associated with reduced mortality risk; however, in most instances the likelihood that healthier individuals tend to be more involved in activities serves as an effective explanation for these associations. [ie, if you're in good health, you're more active, be it religiously or otherwise, and that's why the ADL effect noted in your paper made the religious "protection" disappear...duh]

...Older men appear to benefit from participating in solitary but active pursuits, measured with an index that includes hobbies such as carpentry and gardening. This finding deserves a word of caution. Because respondents selected activities on the basis of their capacity to engage in them, we cannot be certain that existing differences in health between active and less active men are responsible for this finding....[note that these researchers are more thoughtful and clever than to commit the cum hoc, ergo propter hoc of your paper]...

Formal group involvement—organizational and religious activities—produces no longevity benefits, because their association with mortality is fully explained by the tendency of healthier respondents to be engaged in those activities. This "selection" hypothesis goes against the findings of other studies, particularly those that find religious attendance to be a robust predictor of mortality among elderly persons (Idler and Kasl 1992Citation; Koenig et al. 1999Citation; Oman and Reed 1998Citation). Interestingly, family contact does not predict mortality risk and is consequently omitted from our analysis. This finding is in line with earlier studies of oldest old persons in Sweden showing that family integration tends to have virtually no effect on various kinds of health outcomes of elderly persons. It is also consistent with the current Swedish welfare model that mandates the state, through public services, to assume the main responsibility for providing care needed by elderly persons (Parker 2000Citation; Szebehely 2000Citation)....
see The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 56:S335-S342 (2001).

Let's end with the discussion by your papers' authors:
In this study we found that private religious activities provided a protective effect against mortality for an elderly population free of functional impairment, even after controlling for numerous covariates; no such effect persisted in the ADL impaired group. To our knowledge, this is the first study to document a possible protective effect for private religious activity on mortality in a large community-dwelling population. Whereas studies of organizational religious activity (ORA) and mortality have shown a positive correlation (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9), this study demonstrates protection via nonorganizational religious activity (NORA), at least for those who practice NORA before the onset of impairment in ADLs.
BUA-HA-HA-HA...good stuff! I think I'll thus avoid church and stay busy in the garden, and then when I get impaired, I'll send my wife to church to ensure her survival, but flip a coin to determine whether or not it will confer benefit for me to go, ah hell, who am I kidding? I'll keep working in the garden, it's good for us that God cursed the ground, eh?

see
Does Private Religious Activity Prolong Survival? A Six-Year Follow-up Study of 3,851 Older Adults, The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, v55, m400 (2000) [follow-up by your authors]

See also:
Physicians and Patient Spirituality: Professional Boundaries, Competency, and Ethics
Roles of Religious Involvement and Social Support in the Risk of Colon Cancer among Blacks and Whites
Religion, spirituality, and medicine [Sloan, 1999 Lancet]
Religion, Spirituality & Medicine [Richard Sloan's follow-up, the lead author of a recent article in the prestigious medical journal Lancet cautioning physicians not to prescribe religion as medicine. This study was published prior to the Duke study in 1999]
"Linking religious activities and better health outcomes can be harmful to patients, who already must confront age-old folk wisdom that illness is due to their own moral failure. Within any individual religion, are the more devout adherents 'better' people, more deserving of health than others? If evidence showed health advantages of some religious denominations over others, should physicians be guided by this evidence to counsel conversion? Attempts to link religious and spiritual activities to health are reminiscent of the now discredited research suggesting that different ethnic groups show differing levels of moral probity, intelligence, or other measures of social worth. Since all human beings, devout or profane, ultimately will succumb to illness, we wish to avoid the additional burden of guilt for moral failure to those whose physical health fails before our own."
The relationship between religion/spirituality and physical health, mental health, and pain in a chronic pain population. [Pain patients' religious and spiritual beliefs appear different than the general population (e.g. pain patients feel less desire to reduce pain in the world and feel more abandoned by God). Hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed significant associations between components of religion/spirituality and physical and mental health. Private religious practice (e.g. prayer, meditation, consumption of religious media) was inversely related to physical health outcomes, indicating that those who were experiencing worse physical health were more likely to engage in private religious activities, perhaps as a way to cope with their poor health. Forgiveness, negative religious coping, daily spiritual experiences, religious support, and self-rankings of religious/spiritual intensity significantly predicted mental health status. Religion/spirituality was unrelated to pain intensity and life interference due to pain]
Spirituality in health: the role of spirituality in critical care
Analysis of Lancet article, by FFRF
Reality check

Huh, whattya know? Maybe your "facts" are a little off? Maybe the fact that longevitiy studies and infant mortality studies and teen pregnancy and abortion rates and murder rates were ALL directly correlated to increased religiosity in western democracies never caught your attention? Well, let me help you out:
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
Whattya know? The countries with the highest number of atheists just so happen to have lower murder rates, teen pregnancies, abortions, infant mortality, and longer longevity. Maybe you should do some reading ;)

Some "pro-religious" sources [older]:
Science & Theology News
Religion, Spirituality, and Medicine: How Are They Related and What Does it Mean? [by Koenig, author of flawed study, 2001]
Religious Involvement, Spirituality, and Medicine: Implications for Clinical Practice [Mueller, 2001]
Note that Mueller was the lead author of the recent study confirming that intercessory prayer does nothing:
Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer [April 2006]

What kind of sick morality would put false hope in the heads of many? Worse still, confirmed by Mueller's recent study, those people who knew they were being prayed for did worse than those who weren't prayed for at all. Perhaps it's the problem of linking morality with health? Perhaps you don't know any better. Perhaps those who derived their sick morality from a God who kills babies [cf 1 Sam 15:3, Num 31] can't see the problem in foisting false hopes and lies on others for the sake of propping up this god's popularity?

A Serious Question

I received this serious question via e-mail and I'm quite busy today, so I'll throw it up for serious discussion, although it's already being discussed in the post below this one.

I'm a christian who has become quite skeptical. An honest doubter, as you might say. As an elder in an evangelical church and one who has been a passionate lay bible teacher and defender for 13 years, this is a difficult time for me.

For me, the one thing that keeps me from rejecting the whole thing is this: the testimony of the apostles. Why would a dozen men give up everything they had, and, for all but one, their very lives, for their proclamation of the risen Christ? I can see why a modern radical islamic "martyr" would give his/her life for their beliefs. They have simply been deceived into believing something that isn't true. The case is much different for Jesus's apostles, though. If what they proclaimed was not true, they would have been the very ones who fabricated and propagated this vicious lie. Why would they give their lives for something they *knew* very well was a lie (if indeed it were a lie)?

I'm curious what answers you could offer or where you could direct me to read them.

One of many Problems

Easter having passed, and thoughts of Resurrection problems blooming in the air, I had a chance to delve into a question I pondered long ago. Why weren’t the disciples charged with grave-robbing?

It is fun to discuss Christianity globally, and broad topics such as the Problem of Evil, and the Sovereignty/Free Will issue. But entire books have been written in those areas, and to cover it in a blog is impossible.

For many deconverts, Christianity did not fall because of one argument, or one paper, or one concept. It was the build up of many ideas, many problems, that individually would only cause questions, but exponentially grew to convincing us that Christianity is not true.

I thought I would focus on just one of these plethora of problems for a breather—the soldiers at the tomb.

Of course, as we all know, the Original Gospel of Mark has no post-resurrection happenings. It leaves us with an empty tomb, the failure of the disciples (Mark 15:40-41) an unknown young man directing to Galilee, and finally, the failure of the women. (Mark 16:8)

Mark has Joseph taking Jesus body, and Joseph rolling the rock in front of the tomb. (Mark. 15:46) No soldiers, no seal, no guard. The Gospel of Luke faithfully records Mark’s tale. (Luke 23:53) No soldiers, no seal, no guard. The Author of John, liking that Nicodemus chap from the third chapter, includes Nicodemus helping Joseph with the burial. (John. 19:39) No soldiers, no seal, no guard.

However, the author of Matthew has decided to “up the ante” as it were and include soldiers and seals on this tomb, at the request of the Priests. (Mt. 27:66) No other Gospel records these fighters. We are often informed that the reason for the various discrepancies in the Gospel accounts is that each author was focusing on differing aspects. Apparently the authors of Mark, Luke and John did not find the soldiers and seals important in their account.

But wait a minute. Luke and Mark both have the women bringing spices to anoint Jesus on the first day after Sabbath, and John has Mary approaching the tomb. While these three authors may not have found the soldiers and seal important, they still have to deal with them in their accounts! How were the ladies supposed to get around the guards? Were they to break the seal? In fact, Mark notes that the ladies DID take into account physical problems associated with getting to Jesus’ body. “Who will roll away the stone for us?” Mark 16:3.

They weren’t worried about the men with swords and spears and shields, there specifically to keep people like them out of the tomb. No, that wasn’t going to be the problem. They weren’t worried about breaking a seal that apologists inform me would result in the penalty of death. Naw, who would worry about that? The thing they were worried about is having the physical strength to roll back a stone.

While the other three authors may not have focused on soldiers and seals, this does not allow them to ignore them either! We are still well within the three-day period the priests were worried about, no reason to think the job was done. Already, we start to have serious questions about whether these soldiers really existed. The authors of Mark, Luke and John recount no knowledge of them, and the persons in their Gospels act as if they do not exist.

We are often informed they were Roman soldiers. They were not. There are four reasons we know this. First, the chief priests and Pharisees asked Pilate to make the tomb secure. Pilate tells them, “You have a guard” (they did) “make it is secure as you want.” (Matthew 27:66) Pilate didn’t offer a guard; he said “Use your own.”

Second, after the incident, who do the soldiers report to? A commanding Roman officer? No, they go back to the Chief priests. (Mt. 28:11) A Roman guard, reporting to Jewish religious leaders, and taking their advice? What is the likelihood of that? We have to assume that the authors of the other Gospels somehow missed the soldiers, now (in order to keep the story straight) we have to assume that Roman soldiers would answer to Jewish authorities. How far can we stretch credibility until it snaps?

Thirdly, the soldiers take a bribe! Mt. 28:12. How does the author of Matthew know of this? A bribe is, by its very nature, secretive. A soldier, taking a bribe from leaders of a conquered, troublesome nation, is no way for the soldier to advance their career! If this author knew it, it is very likely others did as well. The soldiers would have been severely disciplined, if not executed.

But the most important reason, is the excuse—“We fell asleep.” (Mt. 28:13) When apologists like to bolster how impossible the “stolen body” theory is, they trot out the fact that if a Roman guard fell asleep on his watch, the entire squad would be killed. “How it would have been possible for the disciples to sneak around the guards, since they would never have slept?” claims the apologist.

Assuming this for a moment—isn’t the dumbest reason in the WORLD for the guards to use for not fulfilling their job is to say, “We fell asleep”? I was just told that this excuse would result in a death penalty. Now they dredge it out. (And, if it would result in a death penalty, they would owe their lives to the priests to convince their commanding officer not to kill them. Hence, no bribery of money would have been necessary; the soldier’s very lives were in the priests’ hands.) No soldier, thinking that if they were to be accused of falling asleep at the job they would be killed, would ever use that excuse. Their response to the priests would have been, “You ignorant dolt. We say that, we are walking dead-men.”

Besides, why forget the earthquake? If “we fell asleep” would work, why not “the earthquake knocked us out”? It is there, it is convenient, and it won’t get them killed. Better, more believable, and gets around that nasty death penalty. It is as if they just completely forgot about the earthquake happening. Other Gospels do not account for it, Romans reporting to Jews, earthquakes forgotten about, excuses that result in death penalties—credibility is at the breaking point.

Unless, of course, the guards weren’t Roman. If they were temple guard, they would be under no such penalty, bribery would be necessary (since they could have fallen asleep), they would report to the priests—it all falls nicely in place.

Except one thing. If the priests were willing to pay Judas to betray Jesus, were willing to go to extraordinary lengths to have him killed, they equally could go to extra-ordinary lengths to pay off guards to say whatever they wanted them to say. Again, caught in the quandary. The apologist wants them Roman, so they could not be bribed, and then the apologist says they spread lies because…they were bribed!

We have three gospels that indicate there were no guards, no seal. One that claims there was. In the one that claims there was, we have priests, bribing their own guards to say whatever the priests want them to say. The credibility of this story of guards is now gone.

But there is more….

Assume for one moment it is true. That there were guards, that there was a seal. That we have an empty tomb to explain. We now have ready-made reasons to substantiate crimes against the disciples resulting in capital punishment. The simplest end of Christianity?

“Local Jerusalem news: ‘Disciples Charged: Death penalty likely.’” Remember, desecrating a tomb resulted in banishment at the least, death at the most.

The priests had used false witnesses before, in the plot to kill Jesus. Mt. 26:59-60. Mark 14:58-59 Now they have ready, willing and motivated witnesses to testify against the disciples.

As a generalization, religions enjoy controversy, but despise competition. Controversy allows one to rally the troops, weed out the faint-hearted, and re-instill loyalty. Jesus provided just the controversy need to substantiate the Pharisees’ position. Look what happened to him! By the time of his death, he had no followers, a mob had just chanted to kill him, and his religion was effectively wiped out. Pharisees proven again to be correct that violating YHWH’s laws only brings condemnation.

Then Peter steps up and preaches for the first time. And attracts 3000 followers. Acts 2:41. This is no longer controversy, it is becoming competition. By his second recorded sermon, the Priests and Sadducees (Luke had the right sect in power) arrest them. (Acts 4:1-3) The priests were concerned about the growing numbers. (Acts. 4:4)

What to do? What to do? Wait a minute! About two months ago, the priests had bribed their own soldiers to spread the rumor that these very men had committed a capital offense. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what to charge them with—desecrating a tomb and stealing a body. (And, don’t forget, we are assuming a resurrection. It isn’t like the disciples can have one of their own, Joseph, open up the tomb and show a body there. Not very likely Joseph or his family had time to bury another there in two months. The tomb would be empty—proof enough of a stolen body.) The priests have opportunity, motive, and witnesses. They want the disciples out of the picture? Easily done.

But what does Luke say? “They could find nothing as to how to punish them.” (Acts 4:21) Hey, Luke, why couldn’t the priests have used the crime of grave-robbing? Oh, that’s right. You didn’t write that; Matthew did. You didn’t find the guards important to the story.

The priests arrest Peter again. (Acts 5:28) Again they can’t remember using the grave-robbing accusation. Amazingly a Pharisee comes to their rescue, and recommends the Sadducees leave this growing religion alone. They did. For one chapter. The religion grew, the priests forgot the advice of Gamaliel, and execute Stephen.

Now we get the start of the persecution against the church by the Jewish authorities. At this point it became acceptable to kill them. Now, finally, can we see the Jewish authorities bring out the grave-robbing accusation? They want the Christians dead, they have a capital crime proof sitting right in their pocket, do they bring it out? Nope.

We have one witness, the author of Matthew, contending there were soldiers guarding the tomb. Every other witness does not include these soldiers. Every other participants in the story act as if these soldiers and seals are completely invisible. When it would be necessary to deal with their presence, they are ignored. When their existence would be helpful to the Jewish authorities, they are forgotten.

We have one witness, contrary to every other witness available, and his testimony does not make common sense. It does not fit with the actions, re-actions, and subsequent events. It is as if the soldiers were a part in the theatre, popping in for their requisite lines and actions, and then exiting stage left, never to be seen or heard again.

In the 60’s C.E. a Petronius Arbiter wrote a bawdy novel called Satyricaon. In Chapter 112, he wrote about a soldier, whose duty was to guard the corpses of crucified victims. The soldier was lured away, and sure enough, a corpse was stolen. As pure speculation, I wonder if the author of Matthew had heard this story, or one derived from it, and couldn’t resist incorporating it into his Gospel. An incorporation into the Gospel that gave a ready response for anyone else making the same accusation here.

Whatever the reason, the probability of soldiers at the tomb is so inconceivable, that using them as an defense to the empty tomb problem only invites more, not less, problems.

And this is just one of the very many problems with the Resurrection story…

The Bible Not Fit For Today (II)

Christians, I have some questions for you, and I would like some honest answers. These are all very important questions and I want them treated as such, with "book, chapter, and verse" from the Holy Bible. No other answers, rationalizing, speculation, or philosophizing will be accepted. I am looking for straight-up biblical answers...

To which passage will you direct me to provide me with the Bible's take on cryonics? Will it be a scriptural practice with humans once we learn how to safely freeze, and in the future, unfreeze a human to find a cure for a disease? Or are we dodging your God's will on the fact that he wants us to face the consequences of any condition/ailment he sends our way?

To which passage will you direct me to show Bible authority for the cyborgization of replaceable/repairable body parts. If I lose a hand, I do have Bible authority to replace it with a genetically engineered one, no? If I don't, are all the old people with pacemakers and artificial joints going to Hell along with me? Surely not, right? For that matter, why not show the Bible authority for removing a non-life-threatening mole or deformity, or for allowing an extremely homely person to undergo plastic surgery? If our bodies are the temple of God, how dare we alter them, right?

To which passage will you refer me in an effort to show me that life begins at conception? Which passage(s) deal with artificial insemination, invetro fertilization, test-tube babies, contraception, etc. I, for one, would love to know just how you determine as a Christian that when the first cell division occurs at conception, you have a life. I would have thought that perhaps it is after the initial cell divisions occur and the embryo splits...say, into twins or triplets, and that is the point at which life really begins, but I'm not a Christian. You tell me, and please don't fail to direct me to the Bible passage from whence you arrived at your conclusion.

To which passage of scripture would you advise I adhere to, to provide a doctor counsel on how to deal with a baby born with the anatomical parts of both the male and female sexes? Would there be any bible authority to surgically fashion a newborn baby into a complete male or female? Which passages deal with how we should treat transgender people? I would really like to know.

To which passage would you lead me to find authority and the motivation to pursue a space program? Should we even try to visit far distant planets? By what authority? As far as the Bible is concerned, we shouldn't even expect to find pond scum on those distant worlds, and their certainly wouldn't be any sentient, intelligent life out there. So why should we even bother investigating those lofty matters when earth was created as our portion for life and well-being? Should we ever discover aliens from another world who are sentient, what should we do? Evangelize them? Do they have souls? Do they have sin? On the one hand, if they have no souls and are to be considered as mere sheep and oxen, what if they are capable of doing the same moral things we humans do, like exhibiting advanced forms of love and compassion? What if they are truly moral beings? What if their morality actually exceeds our own? On the other hand, if we say yes, that they do have souls and sin, and need to be evangelized, have all those who died on their planet thus far without our "gospel of Jesus" headed to hell? These are some pretty serious issues!

Then, of course, there is the issue of cloning - where in the Bible do we find the go-ahead to proceed with this branch of science? Was it wrong to clone Dolly, the sheep, like we did back in the nineties? Will it be wrong to clone humans? Does cloning somehow encroach on God's plans for man? Will these future human clones have "souls"? Will they be able to go to hell for sins? Will they get off scott-free for wrongs committed? If these soulless things reproduce, will they be capable of having offspring with souls if one of the partners is a normal, "ensouled" human? Won't the children have to get the soul from the non-clone parent who has a soul? Or is the soul sent down from heaven at conception? Might God decide to send down souls for these clones since, for all practical purposes, they are still created in God's image?

Also, what about DNA banks, sperm banks, egg banks, and fertility treatments? Please give me the scriptures on these deep topics. I have other questions on the creation of artificial intelligence, but I think I know what the answers will be. All I want is a good and hearty "Thus saith the Lord" from the word of God to help mankind on these morally crucial matters.

As a former minister, I myself tried many times to find the answers to these questions in the "good old book", but never could. I give up! I am curious to see the Bible's teaching on how to proceed on these subjects from some current believers who are confident that they can do better than I did. I am now fully convinced that the Bible doesn't have these answers, and therefore, is a book that is far from fit as a reliable and applicable guide for matters of life today. Maybe someone can yet prove me wrong on these things.

Now I do hope that any wayfaring Christians who take to answer these questions will realize how much I appreciate their effort in doing so, but I also hope they realize that if their answers don't match up with the answers of their fellow believers, then this suggests that their book does not clearly offer these answers, if at all. Either all that is in the Bible is only what we have authority for (then we'd have to eliminate anything extra-biblical, like cars and planes, etc.), or the Bible implicitly authorizes and guides us today, authorizing a number of extra-biblical things that must be carefully and tediously studied out. However, it is worth stating that this has proven to be an impossible task to undertake, since no one has yet reached a consensus on these "answers" provided by the bible.

Stereo instructions for a type of stereos might be well written, useful, and relevant for a whole product line of a given stereo type, but as time passes, those instructions will inevitably become obsolete. Time and learning will render them useless. The same, I contend, is true of the Bible. It cannot be a valid means of answering today's complex questions and issues. We must look for answers elsewhere.

(JH)

To David and All Others Who So Flippantly Dismiss Our Past Faith

In this post, a gentleman by the name of David Poehlein has been asking why anyone would spend their time discussing a belief they don't hold. He also did what many other Christian commenters have done here as well, dismissed our past faith.

I consider the following an open letter to all who do so.

David,

Do you not notice how presumptuous you are being here?

You come into a forum in which the writers describe a gut-wrenching journey away from faith and you write:

I do not believe that people "lose" faith. I believe they never had it. Maybe they wanted it or convinced themself they had it, but never did.

So, you come in and invalidate all of our experience.

You were no part of my journey. You don't know what it is like to see your faith slowly drained from you. To fight, kicking and screaming, to maintain it. To cry, pray, seek counsel, force yourself into a Church, pray some more, cry some more.

I am/was an ordained minister. From five-years-old until thirty, I believed that Jesus died for my sins and was the love of my life. Never, for one second, during all of that time could I have imagined that I would ever be anything other than a Christian.

I didn't want to leave the Church; I loved it. I loved preaching, singing, praying, teaching, the Bible, seminary, all of it. I stayed, for a while, even after my faith was gone, just because I couldn't imagine life without it. It was horrific.

And, then, you bop in here and flippantly dismiss everything I experienced. You say it was all a delusion. Well, pardon me for not running to embrace what you have to say.

You keep asking why we/I would spend time on Christianity after leaving it.

Read this.

There are a lot of reasons why I post. One is compassion. I don't like to see people brain-washed and hurt by any religion. Another reason is political. Christianity has become a political organization attempting to impose Christian "morality" (if you can call it that) on everyone else. So, I care about individuals, and I care about government. That's why I write.

What if you are wrong, David? I never thought I could be. I got a degree in biblical studies from a very conservative Bible college, a master of arts in theology from the largest Evangelical seminary in the country, and a master of divinity from the tenth largest Evangelical seminary in the country. I was an associate pastor in four different churches. I was ordained, "called" to be a church planter by a large denomination, and given a large grant to do so. I never expected to spend my life any other way than in service of Jesus. I didn't have a suspicion during all of that time that one day, I would be at this point. I was you on many occasions. I came into these kind of forums and actually attempted to give reasons for my faith, and most of the time, I would more than hold my own.

How do you know that you will endure David? How do you know that one day you won't be here on the other side?

I believed Jesus' words, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. . . And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

Do you know how many times I lay face-down on my floor crying to heaven for God to fulfill this promise? Do you know how many times I screamed the prayer of that helpless father in Mark 9:24, "I do believe; help my unbelief"?

Will that be you one day, David? Will you be grasping onto whatever faith you can muster, begging God for help in your unbelief? How do you know, David? How do you know?

The apostle Paul wrote, "Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall." Do you think you stand, David?

Maybe, David, you should be concerned about your own reasons for faith. Maybe instead of entering forums and writing off peoples' experiences without knowing anything about them, you should take the time and examine your faith. You should think about why you believe and why your belief is correct and why the beliefs of the vast majority of individuals who have ever walked this earth are wrong. It is very presumptuous, indeed, to come here unable to "give an account for the hope that is in you," to dismiss the beliefs of most of the people who have ever lived and who ever will live on this earth.

Why don't you do this? Why don't you explain to us why your belief is true? Why don't you say something besides the dogma of your religion? Any Buddhist, Muslim, or believing Jew could do that. They could come in and spout their dogma. If your faith is "true," you should be able to explain why, right? Why don't you let that be your method instead of presuming to know us and simply dismiss what we have to say? We welcome your reasons. We welcome a rational defense of your faith. Try us, okay?

Presuppositionalism: Arguments 4, Supports 0

In this brief post, I will address four arguments made by presuppositionalists. I will contend, that all four are left unsupported by the proponents of this argument.

Argument One

Greg Bahnsen writes, "In various forms, the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist is that the Christian worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary."

Bahnsen believes there are only two worldviews, the Christian worldview and the non-Christian worldview. He believes that the Christian worldview can be proven true because all other worldviews are contradictory and cannot make sense of logic, science, or ethics. He writes, "It is the Christian's contention that all non-Christian worldviews are beset with internal contradictions, as well as with beliefs which do not render logic, science or ethics intelligible."

Bahnsen believes that only one of these "two" worldviews (i.e. the Christian worldview or the non-Christian worldview) can be "intellectually justified." He writes, "Whose perspective is intellectually justified, the Christian's or the non-Christian's?" (emphasis added) Going back to his contention that the Christian worldview is correct because of the impossibility of the contrary, we can formalize this argument in a disjunctive syllogism.

Q v P
~P
:.Q

So that, "The Christian worldview is true or the non-Christian worldview is true. The non-Christian worldview is not true, therefore the Christian worldview is true."

Given the premises, the argument is valid. It is up to the person making the "contention," however, to support the premises.

First, then, one must support the claim that the first premise is correct. It must be shown that only one worldview can be true and the other false.

This premise could be easily established if the Christian worldview merely stated that all other worldviews are false. If this was the Christian worldview, then if another worldview could be true alongside of the Christian worldview, the Christian worldview would then be false and the first premise would hold.

So, easy enough, right? Just show that the Christian worldview states that it and only it is the true worldview.

But how is this proven? By reference to the Christian Bible? Well, that assumes (1) that the Christian Bible is a unified body of literature that says only one thing about this subject, and (2) that the Christian worldview is beholden to the Bible in the first place for definition of its worldview.

The first assumption may be easily proven. I can't think of any support off hand for the idea that the Christian Bible is anything but hostile to other worldviews (except, perhaps, Jesus' statement in Luke 9:50 ". . .for whoever is not against you is for you." but this is questionable, at best).

The second assumption, however, is not so easily demonstrated. How can it be proven that the Christian worldview is beholden to the Bible for its definition of its worldview. Many people who claim to be Christians do not believe this. They believe that they receive messages from God that tell them how to live. Others believe that the Bible is simply a human record of God's interactions with humanity and that their own interactions with God shape their worldview, not the recorded interactions of others long ago.

Must an unbeliever choose sides in this internal debate? When the presuppositionalist tells us that only one worldview can be true, must we believe them and disbelieve others who also say they are Christians but who claim that more than one worldview can be true at the same time?

This dispute may be a little easier to resolve between certain atheists and Christian theists. Most atheists believe the Christian God does not, and never did, exist. If an atheist has a materialist/naturalist/physicalist worldview, part of which says the Christian God does not, and never did, exist, one can justify the first premise of this disjunctive syllogism by reference to theistic beliefs.

The second premise of this argument, however, is that it is not the case that any non-Christian worldview is true. This is more difficult to support.

As I see it, presuppositionalists use three arguments to support their assertion that all non-Christian worldviews are not true.

Argument Two

Presuppositionalists use the transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG). Bahnsen writes that if "predication, reason, explanation, interpretation, learning, certainty, universals, possibility, cause, substance, being, or purpose, counting, coherence, unity, or system in experience or in a conception of a 'universe,' logic, individuating of facts, unchanging 'natures' or laws in a chance universe, uniformity, science, connecting logic and facts or predication to reality, avoiding contradictions, avoiding the irrationalism or scepticism which arise from the tension between knowing discursively and knowing-asystematic, etc," are possible, then God exists. These are possible; therefore God exists.

Or, formally:

<> P-->Q
<> P
:.Q

Though, I think the second premise of this might be harder to justify than many presuppositionalists admit (these are some pretty weighty philosophical questions), I want to concentrate on the justification of the first premise.

How does the presuppositionalist support the assertion that the existence of any of the concepts mentioned above necessitates the existence of the Christian God?

The only thing I've seen from presuppositionalists is a slight-of-hand trick. Instead of justifying their own assertion, they demand that their opponent prove it wrong. Instead of supporting their assertion, they ask something like, "Show me how universal laws of logic (or any of the other concepts listed above) can exist in the non-Christian worldview?"

This, however, is not a support of their assertion. It is, instead, the introduction of a new argument. It is an implied argument, that I haven't seen explicitly stated, but it is present in almost every presuppositionalist argument I am aware of.

Argument Three

This implied argument can be stated formally.

Let:

E = the predication "cannot account for everything that exists"
T = true
n = all non-Christian worldviews

So that,

(x)[Ex-->~Tx]
En
:.~Tn

Verbally, this implied argument states, "For any worldview, if that worldview cannot account for everything that exists, then that worldview is not true. All non-Christian worldviews cannot account for everything that exists, therefore all non-Christian worldviews are not true."

The first premise of this may well be true enough. One would think that a "true" worldview could account for everything that exists.

It is the second premise, however, that the presuppositionalists must support. How do they do that? How do they show that all non-Christian worldviews do not account for everything that exists?

To actually "prove" this, the presuppositionalists would have to prove a non-tautological universal negative. They would have to demonstrate that no existing or possible non-Christian worldview can account for everything that exists.

I would be very interested to hear support for this one. I, personally, don't think it would be possible.

At this point, though, the presuppositionalists that I am aware of pull another trick. They form a new argument that they would never voice, but quietly assume.

Argument Four

This new argument goes like this--

P1: If a non-Christian debate opponent cannot account for all that exists in terms of his or her worldview, then that non-Christian worldview is not true.

P2: This non-Christian debate opponent cannot account for all that exists in terms of his or her worldview.

C: Therefore that non-Christian worldview is not true.

Here, P1 must be justified. How is it the case that a worldview is not true just because a particular proponent of that worldview cannot account for everything that exists? The non-Christian opponent's ignorance does not invalidate the worldview he or she may hold to. There might be a way to account for those concepts that the non-Christian debate opponent is simply unaware of.

To hold this argument is to hold an ad hominem fallacy. It says that a person's belief is not true because of the person's inability to demonstrate it. [An equivalent argument would be, "My old pastor couldn't justify the existence of evil in the universe given an all-wise, all-powerful, benevolent, free God. Therefore, there is no way to justify this reality."]

***

This is the lack of support and trickery that I have observed in presuppositionalists.

First, they cannot, in every case, justify their claim that only one worldview can be true. In cases where they can justify that claim (as mentioned above), they cannot support the claim that all non-Christian worldviews are not true.

Second, in the argument that is meant to support the claim that all non-Christian worldviews are not true (i.e. TAG), they cannot support their first premise that the existence of logic (and the other list of concepts above) demands the existence of the Christian God.

Third, in an attempt to support the claim that all non-Christian worldviews are not true, they adopt an argument that states that a worldview that cannot explain everything that exists is not true. While this may well be the case, they cannot support the second premise of that argument that all non-Christian worldviews cannot account for everything that exists.

Fourth, in attempting to support the premise that all non-Christian worldviews cannot account for everything that exists, they assume an argument that states that if "a non-Christian debate opponent cannot account for all that exists in terms of his or her worldview, then that non-Christian worldview is not true." This argument, however, commits a fallacy (i.e. ad hominem).

We see, then, that the presuppositionalist argument is smoke and mirrors. It has been successful in the past because it takes the presuppositionalists' opponents by surprise. If the argument has proven anything, it proves that there are some tough questions in philosophy.

The presuppositionalist thinks that s/he can easily answer any of the difficulties of justifying basic beliefs. The word "God" is invoked like some kind of magical, cure-all elixir. As a team-member here similarly stated, Why is the sky blue? God. Why are bumble-bees yellow and black? God. Why do babies die? God. How can I prove there are other minds? God. How did the universe get here? God. How can a universal exist? God.

That word just fills every gap. You can squeeze it anywhere. The presuppositionalists have a ready answer for problems in philosophy. It's "God."

"What does that mean, though? Define God for me."

"God is powerful."

"Powerful like a truck?"

"No, powerful in a way that you have never experienced. Powerful in a way that you cannot imagine."

"Then what does this tell me about your God?"

"God is benevolent."

"You mean benevolent like volunteers for Doctors without Borders? He heals everyone he can?"

"No, God has actually ordered people to kill children and infants, donkeys and cattle. He is 'benevolent' in a way beyond your understanding."

"Then what does this tell me about your God?"

". . ."

Gees, that word "God" is a convenient bugger though, isn't it? You don't even have to define it intelligbly and you can use it to explain any problem in the world!

Come on, presuppositionalists! There is a reason that your view is ignored by so many. The argument is so full of holes, Swiss cheese is jealous.

Justifying TAG? Part 2: A Response to Paul Manata

I am very glad that Paul Manata has responded to my various posts on presuppositionalism and laws of logic (the most recent post being this one). His response has been a long time in the making and I was beginning to wonder if it would ever arrive.

Below, I will comment on his response.

First, I should say this. I actually do have a good deal of respect for Paul. We've had some very valuable discussions in the past. I believe that he is well-reasoned and articulate, and I enjoy our dialogue because I feel that he pushes me to be more exact with my language.

Every now and then you will see me "trading barbs" with Paul in various comment boxes. I've more or less simply adopted the prevailing language of blogging, and the "insults" are meant to be playful banter and not taken seriously. [I suspect Paul thinks likewise about his barbs as well, and doesn't really believe I am an "ex-brainer."]

That said . . .

Paul states that the transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG) is "person varied." When he states TAG,

<> P-->Q
<> P
:.Q

the "P" is that "which the skeptic accepts." Quoting Bahnsen, he fleshes this out:

If predication, reason, explanation, interpretation, learning, certainty, universals, possibility, cause, substance, being, or purpose, counting, coherence, unity, or system in experience or in a conception of a "universe," logic, individuating of facts, unchanging "natures" or laws in a chance universe, uniformity, science, connecting logic and facts or predication to reality, avoiding contradictions, avoiding the irrationalism or scepticism which arise from the tension between knowing discursively and knowing-asystematic, etc, are possible then God is the case .

Predication, reason, explanation, interpretation, learning, certainty, universals, possibility, cause, substance, being, or purpose, counting, coherence, unity, or system in experience or in a conception of a "universe," logic, individuating of facts, unchanging "natures" or laws in a chance universe, uniformity, science, connecting logic and facts or predication to reality, avoiding contradictions, avoiding the irrationalism or scepticism which arise from the tension between knowing discursively and knowing-asystematic, etc, are possible.

Therefore God is the case?

Though the question mark at the end seems out of place for a Reformed Christian, I won't make anything of that.

Essentially, Paul is asserting that if any of these things are possible, they are unfounded without reference to the Christian God. Which brings me back to the original question that I started with in my most recent post. Why is this the case? Why is the possiblity of any of these things unfounded without reference to the Christian God?

I stated that, in my experience, presuppositionalists do not attempt to give evidence of this assertion, but instead, they try to shift the burden of proof to make their opponent disprove their assertion.

Paul responds:

i. If the argument was that you could not account or make sense of logic within your worldview, then you'd need to show how you can.

But that IS NOT the argument! At least not the one that you presented. Your argument was:

<> P-->Q
<> P
:.Q

I.e. If some concept accepted by a non-Christian exists, then the Christian God exists; some concept accepted by a non-Christian exists, therefore the Christian God exists.

There is nothing about accounting for or making sense of logic within a world view. You make an assertion here. You state that a concept accepted by a non-Christian demands the existence of the Christian God.

Elsewhere, you may have stated that atheists can't account for held beliefs in their "world view" (see here for correction of this language), but we are talking about your transcendental argument, right? Why do you feel the need to change the subject here? Why not accept your burden to prove your assertion? You are the one presenting an argument, you should be the one to support its assertions.

ii. Since you have a burden as well, you need to show how you can reason autonomously. If you assume that you can have logic without God then you're begging the question against my worldview. So, you can't just assume you're autonomous and not expect to have to justify your autonomy.

Again, I don't have a burden in this transcendental argument. You are the one saying that a concept accepted by a non-Christian demands the existence of the Christian God. You are the one who must demonstrate this.

I have, elsewhere, dealt with my burden of the argument that you have introduced as a red-herring to shirk your obligation to prove your first premise in your TAG argument.

Let's remember that my question was about TAG. You have left that discussion and have introduced another argument that would, essentially, read, "If you can't 'account [for] or make sense of logic within your worldview,' then your world view is not true; you can't 'account [for] or make sense of logic within your worldview,' therefore your world view is not true."

This is a bad argument in its own right (one that, maybe, we can take up another day), but I want you to see that you have changed the topic. We aren't talking about the TAG that you presented any more. I want you to justify your first premise in your TAG argument.

iii. We're debating entire worldviews.

Not in the TAG argument you stated above! We are only debating if your first premise in your argument is true. You should be explaining your assertion that a concept accepted by a non-Christian (like the ones you quoted from Bahnsen above) demands the existence of the Christian God. Maybe later we can debate "entire worldviews," right now, though, we should be talking about your assertion in your first premise of TAG.

iv. If your argument assumes universal laws of logic then you must offer an account of how such things are possible, unless you just want some freebies.

I didn't make an argument, you did!

We are talking about your TAG argument. You are the one who is begging for "freebies" here. You want me to simply accept your first premise without asking that you support it. Why would I grant you this "freebie"? Why should I accept your first premise?

v. There's a two-step method in play. The first is to argue negatively, i.e., you can't account for logic given what you say about the world. The second is to show how, say, logic does presuppose God's existence.

So, let's look at your two-step method.

Step One: Are you now suggesting that your first premise is proven because it can't be disproved? Argumentum ad Ignorantiam! Are you saying that if logic exists, then God exists because I can't show otherwise? So, purple unicorns exist somewhere in the universe because you can't prove otherwise?

No, I don't think you are actually making this mistake. You are too smart for that. What you have done, though, is, again, forgotten that we are talking about the TAG argument that you presented. You are still referring back to your red-herring argument that you introduced so that you can neglect your responsibility of supporting your first premise of that argument.

The first step of your "two-step" method assumes that we are talking about your argument that I can't account for logic in my "world view." But that isn't what we are discussing. We are talking about the TAG argument you presented above, remember? I asked you to justify the first premise of that argument. I did not ask you to justify the first premise of the argument that you have introduced to avoid justifying the first premise of the argument you presented above.

Step Two: Now, this is the step I am actually asking about, and now we are actually talking about the argument you presented above. In this step, you must support your assertion that "logic does presuppose God's existence."

But wait, where is that support? Not in this comment. The next maybe?

vi. The argument is usually retortive in that the attempt is made to show that by denying the transcendental claim you do so only by performing it.

But how is this helpful?

I get what you are saying about transcendental arguments per se, but we are supposed to be evaluating this particular transcendental argument.

In other words, I agree that a transcendental argument for the existence of logic per se would be shown because any logical denial of the existence of logic would be a performance of logic which must exist. But your TAG is something else entirely. By "performing" logic (or any of the other items in Bahnsen's list above), I am only demonstrating that that item exists (whether in reality or perceived reality).

The only way that your argument would be "retortive" would be if by denying that the Christian God exists, I was affirming that the Christian God exists. Now, you do believe I am doing this, but only indirectly. You correctly identify my denial as an act relying on logic, but then you assume that the existence of logic demands the existence of the Christian God.

WHICH IS EXACTLY THE FIRST PREMISE OF YOUR ARGUMENT THAT I HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU TO SUPPORT!

Pardon the yelling, but it is a little frustrating. You are assuming the premise that I have asked you to support in order to prove the premise. Following that argument makes me dizzy, and I yell when I get dizzy.

Next, Paul begins to address my assertion that Greg Bahnsen's "TAG" (as presented here), doesn't sound like a modus ponens argument to me.

I see this as a peripheral issue to the one stated above. If there is a response to this post, I hope that the response focuses more on everything I have stated above rather than this part of my post.

The question I am most concerned with is, "How is the first premise of TAG justified by presuppositionalists?"

What follows is simply an issue I have with understanding how Bahnsen seems to put the argument.

In Bahsen's article, he writes, "Whose perspective is intellectually justified, the Christian's or the non-Christian's?"

I translated this to be:

P v Q

(i.e. the non-Christian's perspective is "intellectually justified" or is the Christian world view "intellectually justified")

He goes on to write, "In various forms, the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist is that the Christian worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary."

I translated this to mean,

~P
:.Q

(i.e. the non-Christian world view is not "intellectually justified" (i.e. it is not "true"), therefore the Christian world view is justified).

Paul responds to my assertion.

i. The Christian worldview is true by the impossibility of the contrary. We're not trying to prove just "if logic, then God" but rather the entire worldview.

Well, according to TAG, the Christian God is true because logic (or one of the other items on Bahnsen's list) exists. And since this is part of your argument, I asked you to justify it.

ii. Transcendental Arguments take the form of modus ponens. I'll sidestep debate here because the burden is one you, considering the fact that you're the only person in the history of the world who has made the stricture of a TA a disjunctive syllogism.

But my point was that Bahnsen made it sound as if TAG was a disjunctive syllogism. I know the structure of TA's. I'm not arguing about how TA's should be stated per se. My point was about Bahnsen's structure, not TA's generally.

Here's what might have confused me. I was under the impression that, according to presuppositionalists, "the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist" was the transcendental argument. Bahnsen writes, "the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist is that the Christian worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary."

I therefore reasoned:

T = F
C = F
:. T = C

(i.e. The transcendental argument is "the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist"; the "impossibility of the contrary" is "the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist"; therefore, the transcendental argument is the impossibility of the contrary.

The assumption that I probably got wrong was that Bahnsen was referring to TAG when he named "the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist."

But I think you can understand my confusion on this point. Throughout your post, when you were supposed to be discussing TAG, you have really been discussing this impossibility of the contrary argument. If TAG is not the "impossibility of the contrary" argument, then you, presuppositionalists, should be more clear on this. You seem to confuse the two throughout your post.

Additionally, you admit that the impossibility of the contrary argument really preceeds TAG.

You see, there are only two worldviews and all I've been doing is giving illustrations on how many different ways I can refute that worldview in its various forms. The non-Christian worldview is like a family in that there are different family members who look a bit different, but they are all members of the same family. Likewise, atheism and Buddhism are just distant cousins. So, my argument is not as you have set it up, rather, it is:

C v ~C

~~C

:.C.

You use TAG to demonstrate ~~C (which I'll give you the "freebie" of assuming that you don't mean everything that is not the Christian world view).

The first argument of a presuppositionalist is disjunctive. Either the Christian world view is true or another one is. In order to establish that another world view is not true, the presuppositionalist employees TAG. TAG states that all other world views hold a belief that can only be justified by the existence Christian God.

The problem, though, is with the justification of TAG. You must justify that argument before you can prove ~~C. And this is what I asked you to do in your response. And this is exactly what you didn't do in your post.

iii. Notice that EB misstates his symbols above. He says that the argument is "the Christian worldview or the non-Christian worldview." He translates that as:

P v Q.

Really, that would be translated P v ~P.

You really should be careful when accusing me of misusing formal logic. I'm pretty good at it.

If P equals "the Christian world view," ~P would equal "not the Christian world view." My cat is "not the Christian world view." So, are you saying that the Christian world view is true or my cat is true? That would be a mistake, huh?

I used Q as a "non-Christian world view" because I needed a symbol that could be used to describe world views, not everything else in existence besides the Christian world view.

We can engage in these formal logic pissing contests more if you want to, but I wouldn't recommend it, for your sake.

Okay, that was parts (2a) and (2b)of your post. In the heading, you said that you would (1) address some comments made by others on this blog, (2) Answer my question about how the first premise of TAG is justified (which is what I think you were trying to do in the pre-Bahnsen discussion above), and (3) refute an argument I have made in the past about the laws of logic.

I feel no need to comment on your first goal as it has nothing to do with me. Above is my response to your second goal (and I believe my response to part (a) shows that you failed to achieve that goal). I will respond to your third goal in a subsequent post (I have a paper due in class and need to attend to that).

I do enjoy the dialogue, Paul. Thanks.

By the way, I am still interested in a real justification of the first premise of the transcendental argument if anyone has one.