- He removed the reply-function from the article that I replied to, i.e., Chilton has engineered things to make sure that his criticisms cannot be exposed on his own website. When Chilton has responded, God has spoken, and that shall be the end of the debate.
For reasons that will become clearer herein, Chilton is being dishonest. He does not fear that I won't be "paying attention". He fears that a counter-apologist like me would most likely corner him and expose the fallacies of his "apologetics".
I now reply to the article. Chilton says:
Another week, another tragedy. This time, we heard of the tragic school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. Like most of you, I am troubled by the incessant and increasing reports of violence across our nation and world.
You shouldn't be. You assume everything god does is morally good, and in Deuteronomy 32:39 "god" claims personal responsibility for all murders and death:
39 'See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand. (Deut. 32:39 NAU)
If Job is correct that God has assigned each person a specific number of days to live, the only way that makes sense is if he was intimately involved in decreeing the time and manner of their death:
5 "Since his days are determined, The number of his months is with You; And his limits You have set so that he cannot pass. (Job 14:5 NAU)
Chilton continues:
For many folks, these senseless acts of violence leave them with a tinge of doubt. Why is it that a benevolent God would permit such acts to occur?
Perhaps they ask that question because they are using modern western democracy, instead of the bible, to define exactly what it means for god to be "benevolent". I think it pointless and deceptive to call god "benevolent", because the only way we can conceptualize of it is by human analogy, and in the human world, "benevolence" cannot exist if the human in question also decrees the murder of children. Back to your "mysterious ways of god" refuge.
This question enters the philosophical and theological sphere known as theodicy. Theodicy ponders the goodness of God’s providence in light of acts of evil.
Bellator Christi Ministries has addressed the problem of theodicy in considerable detail on both the website (https://bellatorchristi.com) and the Bellator Christi Podcast.
Just like Christian apologists have been doing for centuries. And yet why god allows evil continues to bother Christians today no less than it did in the first century. Congratulations on your demonstrable problem-solving progress.
While we could go back through those issues, I think a more pressing issue is at hand. By their statements online, I have observed that some people have contemplated the thought of hitching their wagon to another theology in light of such senseless acts of evil. This is not a good idea, for reasons I hope to show.
You won't be showing any such thing.
For the remainder of this article, I would like to pose four different theological and philosophical options that cover the problem of theodicy, and I will show that Christianity holds the best answer for why a benevolent God permits evil acts.
Then you are contradicting your own bible. Your god allegedly thought there were times when pre-teen girls should be burned to death (Leviticus 21:9). "benevolence" is not an option, it is a pipe dream that tries to use John 3:16 as the lens through which to interpret divine atrocities.
The article examines the following parameters: 1) either God exists, or he doesn’t; 2) humans have free will, or they don’t; 3) God is benevolent, vengeful, or both; 4) there is ultimate justice, or there isn’t.
Option A: Atheism—No God, Questionable Freedom, No Justice
When acts of violence occur, it is strange that many begin to gravitate toward the position of atheism.
Not any stranger than the raped daughter who gravitates away from her father, who had both ability and opportunity to prevent the rape, but knowingly chose rather to just stand there watching and doing nothing.
Because many believe that a loving, benevolent God would never allow evil acts to occur, it is naturally assumed that such a God does not exist. Most problematically for the atheist is that ultimate justice cannot be found. If there is no God, then there is no day of reckoning, no scales that are measured, and no ultimate meaning to anything.
That's a fallacious appeal to emotion. Longing for justice is an emotion.
One may very well assume that good and evil are just figments of our imagination.
No, good and evil are real, but they do not transcend the human level. They are merely words we use to describe events that we feel promote or inhibit survival/thriving. You don't have a corner on the language market: the atheist is not doing anything illogical or inconsistent in saying the boy who killed the kids at the recent Texas school massacre was "evil"...because the atheist doesn't define "evil" in the broad ultimate sense you do. The boy inhibited the survival and thriving of many children and adults in those shootings, and he did not do so for reasons current American law will recognize. That is PLENTY to justify the atheist in characterizing the shootings as "evil". There is no logical requirement that evil always be attached to the devil, or to "god's" opinion of things.
Even though atheism is a popular go-to theory,
So is "Christianity". Did you have a point?
the worldview only exacerbates the problem when it is taken to its logical end. If you follow the route of atheism, you will find that not only do you not find an answer to why evil things occur,
Strawman fallacy: "atheism" does not express or imply answers to why evil things happen. Your argument is going to basically be that by denying god's existence, nothing matters. Sorry friend, but atheism doesn't logically necessitate nihilism. But yes, you might sound convincing to crowds of Jesus-followers who have no training in philosophy, who are thus incapable of discerning where and how your inferences go wrong.
but you will also find that you have no standard by which to gauge anything evil in the first place
Wrong again: you don't have a corner on the language-market: "evil' is not required by definition to linked to god or the devil. The dictionary will confirm this:
There is nothing illogical about the atheist who characterizes the recent Texas school shooting as "evil" because it brought "sorrow, trouble or destruction". as well as no final standard of justice.
According to Genesis 6:6, God sometimes berates himself for his prior bad decisions, so your bible doesn't even justify the assumption that god's decisions about matters are "final". The originally intended pre-scientific illiterate goat-herder audience would never have understood this to be an "anthropomorphism". Modern Christians only do that out of a prior commitment to bible unity or inerrancy. God being stupid would probably not harmonize with other bible statements about god's great wisdom. But the more objective hermeneutic is the concern about how the originally intended audiences would likely have understood the passage.
In a world that God does not exist, then morality does not exist.
That is false, you have not even gotten near making even a prima facie case that "god" is necessary to explain "morality". I suspect that is the case because of how stupid the proposition is. Morality is simply the word we use to characterize situations where we opine that somebody "should" or "shouldn't" do something. Does Chilton seriously believe that if the atheist puts a bandage on his child's scratched knee, the atheist cannot justify this level of concern and is merely borrowing Christian capital?
If you have no God, then you also have no ultimate justice.
So? The only "justice' that is the least bit demonstrable is the human legal system.
Life then becomes nothing more than pitiless indifference.
First, so? I find most people to be pitilessly indifferent toward most evil that takes place outside their daily lives. Even you. Could you be doing more charity than you currently do? What's unreasonable about saying that the reason you don't do as much good as you could with your resources and time, is because there are limits to how caring you are about other people?
Second, you are now fallaciously appealing to just those readers who feel sorry for all people who have ever suffered, which means you are fallaciously pretending that it is only the people who feel such sorrow, who "count" in this argument. You are wrong. Throughout human history, plenty of human beings have been pitilessly indifferent toward other human beings. Are YOU doing all the charity that you could possibly do? If no, why shouldn't we chalk this up to your own pitiless indifference?
Third, naturalism provides a perfectly reasonable explanation for altruism without god. As mammals, we naturally care about those closest to us. As a civilized society, we naturally feel sorry for people further away who are criminally deprived of life, liberty or property. For a start, see Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism (AuthorHouse, 2005) by Richard Carrier.
Fourth, you are only hurting your own case by trying to prove that some type of belief results in pitiless indifference. Your own god allegedly commanded his people to have no compassion on others (Deuteronomy 19:21), God has no pity on orphans despite it not being their fault that their parents were heretics (Isaiah 9:17); God has no pity on children suffering the ravages of war (Ezekiel 5:11 ff, 8:18, 9:5-6), and he tortured a baby for seven days with a horrible disease despite the obvious fact that such infant was not guilty of the sins in question (2nd Samuel 12:15-18).
Option B: Universalism—Benevolent God, No Justice
Universalists hold that everyone, no matter their theological moorings or ethical behavior, will go to heaven in the end. Admittedly, while this is one heresy that I wish were true
But if morality comes from God, then maybe the reason you wish universalism to be true is beacuse the Holy Spirit is telling your heart that the parts of the bible about an angry god injuring people are just fictions?
, the aspect of justice is highly questionable in this worldview. True, it could be that the ethically immoral go through a time of purgatory before going to heaven. However, what if the person does not desire to go to heaven? Sounds strange, but it is not beyond the scope of possibility.
In Luke 23:34, Jesus actually forgives some humans who neither express nor imply any remorse or intention to repent.
Consider the lyrics of AC/DC’s Highway to Hell.
Do you want your readers to investigate your sources? Does a true Christian encourage others to consider anything Satan has to say?
The authors of the song appear to want nothing to do with heaven.
Because even humans on this earth eventually found Jesus too disinteresting to keep communicating with (John 6:66). No reason to think it will be any different in heaven...where God often authorizes evil spirits to make people tell lies (1st Kings 22:19-23).
Furthermore, is there a reckoning for evil acts in universalism?
No, because universalism preaches an absolutely unconditional divine forgiveness. And God is quite capable of getting rid of human sin without needing it to be "reckoned". See 2nd Samuel 12:13. David's sin was taken away, he was spared from the mandatory Mosaic death penalty for adultery and murder, and yet nothing in the context expresses or implies David would have to endure any priestly sacerdotal rite. God no more "needs" to punish sin than you "need" to wear blue socks.
Though universalism is better than atheism, it does not seem to have the power necessary to deal with evil acts.
The god of univeresalism deals with a rapist by forgiving him immdiately, fully, and unconditionally. No need to "deal with" evil acts.
Additionally, it does not emphasize the great disdain that God has for sin. Quoting Deuteronomy 32:35–36, the writer of Hebrews notes, “For we know the one who has said, ‘Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay,’ and again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:30).
Ah, so you are NOT arguing to skeptics, but only to those who hold your fundamentalist assumptions about god and the bible. No wonder your article was about as shallow as a Pentecostal sermon.
Option C: Fatalism—Vengeful God, No Choice
Fatalism is the belief that human beings hold no free will and, thereby, no responsibility.
It's also the belief of those Trinitarian bible believers known as 5-Point Calvinists, at least according to those who criticize Calvinism.
Fatalism may come in the form of naturalistic atheism, deism, or some forms of Christianity. However, fatalism does not answer the problem of evil.
If a man steals a car, the answer to this "evil" is the human legal system. The notion that we yearn for a higher form of justice against this thief, is just stupid.
For the atheistic varieties of fatalism, the worldview does not resolve the problem of evil actions for the reasons mentioned in Option A.
There is nothing unreasonable in the atheist viewing the human legal system as the highest possible form of justice.
For deistic and theistic versions of fatalism, everything comes about by the pre-planned will of God with no human responsibility. This is not to be compared with divine foreknowledge of the willing acts of free agents.
On the contrary, God's infallible foreknowledge of future human choices makes those choices inevitable. The only possible ways to refute a deductive syllogism are a) refute the first premise, b) refute the second premise, c) show that the conclusion didn't logically follow, or d) show that the syllogism is entirely hypothetical and inapplicable to the real world. Keeping those in mind, a deductive syllogism proves that infallible divine foreknowledge leaves no logically possible room for freewill:
Premise 1: Anything God infallibly foreknows will happen, is incapable of failing.
Premise 2: God infallibly foreknow that Salvador Ramos would choose to kill children.
Conclusion: Therefore Salvador Ramos' choice to kill children was incapable of failing.
You cannot refute Premise 1, it is simply assuming God's foreknowledge is infallible, which is a major Christian doctrine. And "incapable of failing" is merely the dictionary definition of "infallible"
You cannot refute Premise 2, since as a doctrinally conservative Christian, you think that premise is true.
You cannot show the conclusion didn't logically follow, as it is constructed of information in both premises and doesn't add to or subtract from that information.
Hence, those Christians who subscribe to God's infallible divine foreknowledge, but who still insist we are "free" to "do otherwise", are illogical, and likely because their bible is that illogical.
Rather, this view holds that God pre-planned everything to come about as it has. The problem with this mentality is self-evident. God is presumed to be the source of evil in this worldview as human beings do not have the capacity to choose other than their pre-designed nature and choices are dictated. Therefore, the ethical and moral standard of God becomes suspect. Of the three positions given thus far, this position holds a slightly higher rank than atheism but less than universalism.
I don't see your point, you own bible makes god the author of evil. Read Deuteronomy 28:15-63. Don't miss v. 63, which says God will take just as much "delight" to inflict rape, parental cannibalism and other atrocities, as he takes in granting prosperity.
Option D: Christianity—Benevolent, Just God Overseeing a World of Free Agents
Thankfully, a fourth option exists. The classic Christian worldview holds the best answer to the problem of evil. The position is as follows: A benevolent, just God created and oversees a world of human free agents and will hold each person accountable for their deeds in the afterlife. For this position to be true, let’s examine four truths the Scripture teaches.
Thanks again for clarifying that you are NOT trying to convince anybody except church folk.
Truth #1: God is loving and just.
While space does not permit us to afford a full examination of God’s goodness and just nature, let us consider a few passages as a case study.
It doesn't make any sense to say God is loving and just. In the real world, the only reason we say somebody is good is because we find they have conformed to a standard of morality outside of themselves. We never say somebody is good merely because they themselves declare themselves to be good. But in the case of "God", there is no standard outside of god to which god is subject. Therefore, when you talk about god being 'good', you need to make clear that you don't determine this in the same way you determine whether a human being is good. But if you provide that much clarity, than you will have a very suspect doctrine: god's goodness derives from nothing but his own statements about his own nature. LOL.
First, God’s benevolence is shown in his great love for humanity.
Yeah, like when he directly tortured an infant for 7 days (2nd Samuel 12:15-18).
Like when God specifies that King Saul must masscre "infants and children" (1st Samuel 15:2-3), the reason being nothing more than their descendants warring against Saul's descendants back during the Exodus about 400 years prior. In other words, kill your neighbor if his great-great-great-great grandfather had murdered your great-great-great-great grandfather.
The apostle John states, “Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 Jn. 4:10).
The atonement of Jesus is an absurd doctrine that no amount of repeating 1st Cor. 1:18 is going to fix. If the entire person of Christ became sin (2nd Cor. 5:21), and the whole person of Christ necessarily includes his divine nature, then necessarily his divine nature also became sin. Be sure to run extra fast to "god's mysterious ways". It's your get-out-of-jail-free card.
Furthermore, Paul writes, “For while we were still helpless, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly … But God proves his own love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:6, 8).
I just want you to know that when you quote the bible, the Holy Spirit testifies to my spirit that I need Jesus.
Second, God is also holy and just. Job reflected on the holy nature of God as he said, “Indeed, it is true that God does not act wickedly and the Almighty does not pervert justice” (Job 34:12).
If God was holy and just when he created mankind, why did he later regret that particular decision (Genesis 6:6)?
Because of God’s holy nature, he expects his people to act holy, as well.
That makes no sense: Did God infallibly foreknow that Hitler would massacre the Jews? if so, how could it be sensible to say God "expected" Hitler to refrain? Does God "expect" us to surprise him by acting in a way contrary to his infallible foreknowledge?
Do you infallibly foreknow that a 2 year old child cannot jump over the moon? If so, could you still somehow seriously "expect" her to engage in that act anyway? Of course not.
In Leviticus, God said, “Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy” (Lev. 19:2). Jesus furthers this thought, saying, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48).
I deny that the bible teaches theology consistently. And you will never show that anything Jesus told anybody in the 1st century "applies to" modern day people. That would require to venture outside the bible itself and comment about how the bible survived the ravages of history, but that evidence is not inspired by God. So any argument that tries to apply biblical anything to modern day people, is necessarily far less authoritative than you think bible-based arguments are.
Truth #2: Human agents are free.
This topic can easily dive into some deep wells of philosophical and theological thought.
Translation: equally authentically born-again Trinitarian Christians disagree on how to interpret biblical statements about the freewill of mankind. And yet they want skeptics to believe God is tellilng them all the same theology, and they don't know why some of them are hearing god incorrectly. LOL.
Suffice to say, for now, the Bible suggests that human beings hold some degree of free agency. That is, human beings choose to act to at least some degree. God’s call on people to repent is sufficient to show the ability of people to freely act to at least some degree. Jesus called on people to repent, saying, “No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as well” (Lk. 13:3). Peter picked up this theme and said, “Repent and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).
A 5-Point Calvinist will call that "heresy". And yet you think a spiritually dead skeptic should figure out which of you got the bible "right". LOL
Truth #3: God desires to save humanity.
God desires to save humanity from their sin and themselves.
Not everybody. Romans 9:18-23. And Calvinists assure me that the first agent to do the heart-hardening is god. We reject the gospel because God wanted us to reject the gospel. And yet you think a spiritually dead skeptic should figure out which of you got the bible "right". LOL
Jesus lamented Jerusalem’s refusal to repent in Matthew 23:37.
Because the bible is inconsistent in its portrayal of how god is.
God expressed his desire to save people rather than to bring judgment in Ezekiel 18.
He also expressed "delight" to cause rape and parental cannibalism in Deuteronomy 28:63.
The chapter ends with God lamenting, “For I take no pleasure in anyone’s death … so repent and live” (Ezek. 18:32). It is when a person and society turn from God that evil increases.
It's also when God sends an evil spirit from heaven that evil increases:
19 Micaiah said, "Therefore, hear the word of the LORD. I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left.
20 "The LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said this while another said that.
21 "Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'
22 "The LORD said to him, 'How?' And he said, 'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.'
23 "Now therefore, behold, the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you." (1 Ki. 22:19-23 NAU)
Throughout the book of Judges, one finds an example of what happens as a nation further slips into depravity as they continue to reject the loving will of God.
Which is curious since you assume they had much better evidence for their god's existence than we have today. They were descendants of the Exodus generation....and you think ancient Hebrew oral tradition "reliably" reported true history, right?
Truth #4: God holds each person accountable for their actions.
No, God can free somebody from responsibility for sin by simply waiving his magic wand. God's law reqired David to be killed for adultery and murder, but God was capable of exempting David from this mandatory death penalty in 2nd Samuel 12:13.
Lastly, the Scripture teaches that God holds each person accountable for their actions. This is not only true for unbelievers, but it is also true for believers. Paul speaks on the Judgment Seat of Christ in 1 Corinthians 9:4–27; 2 Corinthians 5:10–11; and Romans 14:10. The writer of Hebrews adds, “And just as it is appointed for people to die once—and after this, judgment—so also Christ, having been offered only once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him” (Heb. 9:27–28). Thus, each person will have to give an account for their deeds.
Have fun trying to "prove" that any of that crap "applies to" any modern-day person. That would require you to venture outside the bible itself, and make use of evidence that is not divinely inspired.
Conclusion
Christianity holds the best answer for why a loving God allows evil deeds to occur.
Maybe that explains why so many Christians apostatize?
Could he stop every evil act? Well, he could and sometimes has. But if God were to intervene in every act of evil, he would remove the free agency of humanity.
Then you necessarily admit that when cops chase down and capture a suspect, they are removing the free agency of the suspect. Is it god's desire that today's police force criminal against their wills into jail? If so, then your god does not respect human freewill as much as you pretend.
Remember that God allowed himself to become victimized by the depraved nature of humanity.
LOL.
He allowed himself to be crucified on a cross at the hands of evil men to provide the ultimate good—a way for humanity to be reconciled to himself. This opened a pathway into an eternity with him.
He was stupid, since he could easily forgive those who do not seek it (Luke 23:34), he can exempt anybody from the otherwise mandatory penalty of the law without needing to "sacrifice" anything (2nd Samuel 12:13, if you claim god's torture and killing of David's baby was the sacrifice, then you believe YHWH is just as bad as the Canaanites, whom you credit with "child sacrifice"). God could force himself upon anti-Christian bigots and provide forceful evidence guaranteed to produce a change of mind (Acts 9, 22, 26, Paul's conversion).
Granted, the solution that Christianity offers does not always bring immediate gratification. We often want justice now for atrocious acts committed. If you find yourself in that situation, then rest assured that you are in good company. The prophet Habakkuk contemplated the same. Yet God answered the prophet much as he does us.
No, you think Habakkuk was "inspired by God" to write inerrantly. You deny that any person today has that level of access to the divine intent.
Justice is coming. God will weigh the actions of each person and will judge accordingly. But know this, only a covenant relationship with God through Christ will grant you access into his kingdom. Make sure that your heart is right with him. To allow anyone into heaven, God must extend grace rather than judgment. Personally, I am thankful for God’s loving grace. Nonetheless, evil will not win in the end. Instead, the love of God wins for eternity.
Then apparently you never read the last chapter of Revelation. Evil is going to continue even after this alleged "day of "judgment":
15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying. (Rev. 22:15 NAU)
Here is my initial reply to that article:
I don’t understand why you think subjective morality is somehow defective or insufficient to explain morality. Your god is the most complex imaginable thing, assuring you that under Occam’s Razor he stays as the most unlikely candidate, since all non-god explanations are necessarily less complex than “god”.
I have blasted to bits many times in the past Frank Turek’s argument to god from morality, an argument you now imitate here when you pretend that atheism logically leads to pitiless indifference.
I don’t understand why you think getting pitiless indifference out of “atheism” is supposed to be some sort of rebuttal to atheism. Are you not aware of just exactly how pitilessly indifferent most educated adults are toward the plight of the less fortunate? One minute after the radio host speaks in hushed tone about the recent Texas school massacre, she is speaking all excitedly in congratulating some caller for solving a puzzle-game.
Furthermore, most people are hardwired by evolution against pitiless indifference, we are mammals, we by nature do have some care and concern for others like us, even if we are indifferent to unfairness we see happening elsewhere.
I sure wish you’d allow substantive reply, because allowing only minimal reply gives the reader the false impression that nobody is able to “refute” you comprehensively. I request a formal written debate with you at any location of your choosing.
Here is Chilton's response to my reply...which was a problem because with such response Chilton disabled the 'reply' function to make sure that his comments could not be rebutted in the place that rebuttal would be most effective (his own website): I reply to those comments respectively:
Author
Brian Chilton
23 minutes ago
Reply to barry
Barry, evolution cannot account for anything unless it is guided by intelligence.
And then he disables the reply-function, as if his opinion were the end of the matter!
No, purely naturalistic processes sufficiently account for altruism and the lack of nihilism among most atheists.
And if people were not so mired in fallacious theology, they would not desire for a justice that transcends space and time...whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean.
So? Our hatred of the notion of guilty criminals not being caught doesn't imply there is a level of justice beyond the human level.
They were denied justice. How does that begin to express or imply they will endure some higher-than-human justice? You are clearing employing the fallacy of appeal to emotion.
And fingernails offer nothing to account for stale taco shells.
Atheism is merely denial of, or lack of belief in, a god. "Atheism" is not a word connoting any specific philosophy beyond the non-existence of gods. Your not understanding how atheists could possibly care about anything is not a testament to the problems of atheism, but a testament to your own ignorance of how sufficiently naturalistic realities account for mammalian altruism.
Neither does any philosophy that says God caused the shooter to commit the murders, like Deuteronomy 32:39.
Well first, Christianity doesn't have a solution to that problem, because Christians disagree on how to interpret the bible, so that not even a very confident belief that "god is guiding me" constitutes the least bit of dependable justification to believe you have the "truth". Too many fundamentalists have become liberals or atheists later in life, to pretend that the way you currently feel in your fundamentalist dogmatism is "truth". How often do Christians find out that doctrines they held for decades, were false?
Second, you are fallaciously assuming without evidence that "molecules set in motion by chemical responses" are insufficient to enable us to detect truth. You would agree that bacteria and bugs lack soul and spirit, and are therefore purely physical creatures, and yet their purely chemical brains somehow enable them to detect truth sufficiently to prevent them from going extinct. They can tell, even if only imperfectly, that danger is near.
You have not shown any "danger". You have simply brandished your ignorance of the sufficiency of the naturalistic explanations.
But that doesn't explain anything, because "uncaused cause" and "God" are plagued by ceaseless hosts of philosophical defects. In short, in the adult world, you cannot explain how the book got on the table by positing the existence of fairies.
I'm not seeing the relevance of atheism being false: you have not, and never will, make a convincing case that there is any "danger" in atheism, nor will you make the case that anything in the bible "applies to" modern day people.
You are obviously stupid and bigoted: this post shows that I have a habit of responding point by point.
Second, the only reason you think I wasn't willing to listen to the other side, is because of your dogshit posting rule that disallows criticial replies unless they are limited to just a few lines.
Your excuse for declining my debate challenge was transparently dishonest, and the real reason you won't debate me is because I've hit you in the past with arguments you haven't dealt with and cannot deal with in any sustained fashion. You are afraid that when your critic is allowed more than a few lines to criticize you, you won't be able to keep up. Yes, most Christians in apologetics are infested by the sin of pride. They wouldn't truthfully admit their ignorance and fright of debating if their lives depended on it. You are no exception.
