J. Warner Wallace and the flying spaghetti monster flop

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

“Believing in God is the same as believing in the ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’”

Posted: 14 Oct 2019 01:29 AM PDT

Response #1:
“What do you mean by ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’? Are you referring to the fictional deity created by Bobby Henderson in 2005?

Yes.  It's comparable to the fictional character created by Iron Age goat-herders.  Hence the analogy.

Mr. Henderson created that character (and a larger narrative called, ‘Pastafarianism’), to protest the fact that Intelligent Design was being considered as part of the science curriculum in the state of Kansas.

Good for him.  You open the door to ID in the schools, fairness demands that you give equal time to ALL over views.  

No one actually believes in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, including its creator, Mr. Henderson.

Ok, then we'll use the analogy of "tooth-fairy" or "Santa Claus". 

He’s tried to protest the existence of religion by equating Pastafarianism to religious belief, and he’s even applied for religious status in a number of countries. He’s been repeatedly denied, however. Why? Because international legal bodies understand the difference between religious claims and fictional claims. Can you see the difference as well?”

And since international bodies have no ulterior motives to keep the status quo, their solitary motive in denying the FSM religion is their advanced degrees in philosophy,  no doubt. 

No one actually believes in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, including its creator, Mr. Henderson.

But if he started publicly proclaiming belief in such god, America and certain other countries would likely permit him freedom to exercise that religion. 

Response #2:
“Are you saying that belief in God is the same as belief in fairy tales or imaginary characters?

Yes.  There is no more evidence that adherents of major world religions (Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc) have any more accurate knowledge of the deity they worship, than Henderson has of the FSM.  But most of them are probably deceived into thinking that because people have cooked up lots of stories about these others gods for thousands of years, there is something "more" to the "major" gods.  Not so. 

If so, this assumes that fictional characters and God are equally unsupported by the evidence.

They are. 

But this isn’t true at all. What evidence do we have, for example, to support the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

About as much evidence as there is to support your Christian notion that your mind exists in another dimension, or that your moral outlook is beamed into you from another dimension. 

Is there anything other than the text written by its creator (in this case, Bobby Henderson)?

Yes, the big bang proves that the FSM is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, etc. 

The case for God’s existence, by contrast, is evidentially robust, even without any ancient text.

Hold it just a cotton pickin' minute:  there is nothing about the word 'god' that distinguishes it from the FSM, you are merely choosing to use a term that has been around longer.

For example, the existence of our finite, finely tuned universe points to an all-powerful, creative force outside of space, time and matter.

Except that speaking of "outside of space, time and matter" is to defend an incoherernt concept, since there is no such thing as "outside" of "space", or "time".  The universe is no more finely tuned for humans than your attic is finely tuned for mold-growth, and your own bible contains passages that logically contradict the notion of God's omnipotence.  Since every biblical description of heaven indicates events take place there in no less temporal progression than they do on earth, biblical "heaven" is not in another dimension, it is within "time".  You will insist all such language is mere "anthropomorphism", but you'll have to demonstrate the non-literal intent from the context of each passage, you cannot, and if you did, you would open the door to the possibility that some other biblical passages, the literal interpretation of which you require to ground your theology, were not intended literally. 

The inexplicable origin of life (driven by information in the genetic code)

God of the gaps fallacy.  No, you are not saying this because the origin of life looks like intelligent design.  You simply rest upon the fact that science doesn't have all the answers yet. 

and appearance of deign in biology point to an intelligent creator who has a purpose in mind.

If so, then that purpose was that carnivores exist before sin entered the world, which means the sadism in nature is not a result of evil or sin, but of God being like a demented toddler, and chaining two dogs together just because he knows they will massacre each other.  Sure, you can escape those problems by being a young earth creationist and hence blame all the yucky stuff on 'sin', but the biblical case for old earth creationism is strong, in which case we are reasonable to interpret the biblical god as desiring carnivores to inflict misery on other creatures long before "sin" happened.  For example, birds obviously cause misery to lower life forms, such as eagles which tear apart the squirrel, fish or rabbit while it is still alive, yet Jesus says it is God who supplies the birds their food: 

 26 "Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? (Matt. 6:26 NAU)

  41 "Who prepares for the raven its nourishment When its young cry to God And wander about without food? (Job 38:41 NAU)
  9 He gives to the beast its food, And to the young ravens which cry. (Ps. 147:9 NAU) 

Really?  It is god who not only wanted predatory birds to tear apart their still-alive prey, but for some of them to eat the newly hatched chicks straight out of the nest (see here), not much different than the human cannibal who sneaks into your infant's bedroom and eats him alive.  There will be stupid Christians out there who insist that birds of prey make sure their prey is dead before they rip into it, which would then mean that certain videos on youtube are just really clever photoshops.  See here.

Wallace continues: 

Our experience of consciousness and free agency is also incomprehensible under atheistic materialism, but can be easily explained if we were created by an immaterial, conscious, free agent. 

The consciousness argument is ridiculous, as Christians don’t believe animals are made in the image of god, yet animals still have a “consciousness”.  Sure is funny that consciousness becomes more and more complex as we move up the ladder from simpler to more complex life forms.  As for freewill, there is no scientific evidence that the will of a person is “free” from the laws of physics (alcohol, drugs and brain injury obviously cause an impact on our “freewill”, and attributing this to the mind being the brain, is far more rational and reasonable than the trifling that maybe the mind comes into the brain from another dimension, and has trouble manifesting itself if the brain is altered).  If the will could be free from physics, it would thus be free from the laws of cause and effect, which would then mean freewill proves that we are ultimately irrational.  At the end of the day, there really is no "reason" why you choose a pencil over an equally available pen...you "just" did...the very definition of irrationality (i.e., action without reason).

“easily explained”?  Ok, if you are trying to keep Christian “babies” from apostatizing, then yes, whatever the "easier" explanation is, would be their preferred choice.  But truth is not limited to what’s easy.  however, given that you wish to make money selling Jesus, I can understand why you'd be quick to give those potential donors to your ministry, or buyers of your books, the "easier" solution. 

Finally, the existence of transcendent, objective moral truths and obligations are best explained by the existence of a transcendent, personal moral law giver. 

You are also high on crack:  there is no such thing as objective moral truth in the transcendent sense you intend.  I don’t care if you insist “thou shalt not torture babies to death solely for entertainment”,  YOU are the one that has the burden of showing any moral to be transcendentally “objective”, and you aren’t doing that by discovering that other human beings agree with you about certain morals. 

You will say the fact that the vast majority of people in history obeyed this is proof that it is objective, but that’s like saying that because most dogs have a natural inclination to attack anything that is trying to get into their food, this moral only comes into them from "god". 

Can you see how – based on science and philosophy alone – the existence of God is reasonable even while the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not?

No, but I see how by switching out "Flying Spaghetti Monster" for "god" would likely cause your mostly Christian readership to think all is well.  The truth is that "god" is nothing but a made up word with made up definition, and like the FSM, does not link to anything in the real world.

Can you also see that the case for God can be made without any ‘sacred text,’ while the case for the Flying Spaghetti Monster is entirely dependent on Mr. Henderson’s text?”

Didn't you know that Henderson chapter 1 v. 20 says you are inexcusable because what may be known of FSM is manifest, because the FSM has declared it unto you?  The more you deny this truth, the more you prove to be a disciple of the devil.  I go to Henderson church every Sunday, and I'm not gonna let you steal my joy in the FSM.

Response #3:
“There’s one incredibly important difference between belief in God and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the creator of the Spaghetti Monster, Bobby Henderson, mistakenly admitted the difference when he first created the character. Henderson conceived the fictional deity as a form of protest against religious belief in general. He originally claimed that his belief in the Spaghetti Monster (called ‘Pastafarianism’) was the same as other religious beliefs because Pastafarians had ‘several lengthy volumes’ explaining all the details of their religion and that there were ‘over 10 million’ Pastafarians (neither fact is true, however). Henderson’s intentionally false claim, however, reveals the error in comparing God to the Spaghetti Monster. Henderson assumed that belief in God was dependent on religious texts and accepted belief.

Blame it on the fundamentalist Christians who think quoting the bible infuses magic into the air.

 Neither is true, however. A belief in God is reasonable even without a religious text, 

First, what's reasonable for YOU does not dictate what's reasonable for another person.  Reasonableness and accuracy are not the same thing.

Second, my attack on Jesus' resurrection is solid, therefore, Christianity is false.  If Christianity is false, you would likely just play the odds and start stacking all of your money on the God of pre-Christian Judaism.  But the falsity of Christianity would then mean you had been misrepresenting that god for 2,000 years, in which case, there is far more evidence that, under the assumption Christianity is false, whatever god still existed would be far more pissed off at the Christians than he would at atheists.

Third, the god of the bible has no problem getting rid of a person's sin with a wave of his magic wand (2nd Samuel 12:13) and causing people to believe and do whatever he wants, with a wave of his magic wand, see Ezra 1:1.  So if I was in trouble with this god, I would be able to correctly protest that he must have wanted me to make all the decisions I did, because he had both ability and opportunity to make me think differently, and yet just sat there doing nothing....like a man who notices a woman being raped, sees no further danger in reporting this to the police, has ability and opportunity to so interfere, but then doesn't report anything, then later insists he cannot be held morally accountable because he was just doing what god was doing, and respecting the rapist's freewill.  FUCK YOU.

and even if no one joins a religious group. God’s existence can be inferred from cosmological, biological, neurological (mental) and moral evidence in our universe, unlike a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. 

We can fix that right now:  Let's stop saying "Flying Spaghetti Monster", and start saying "Flying Spaghetti GOD who decides when and where to open the eyes of unbelievers".  There, now we use the word "god", and we infuse into our new cult the same bullshit theology you tell yourself to explain why some people resist your religious claims.  Maybe we'll incorporate a "still small voice" in there somewhere, achieve tax-free status, make up songs about the FSM, and eventually put you completely out of business?

Will J. Warner Wallace ever stop pushing his elementary school level apologetics?

This is my reply to yet another "pushing ignorance as knowledge" article by J. Warner Wallace entitled:

“There is no evidence for God’s existence!”

8:05 AM (2 hours ago)

How Would YOU Respond?

I respond to the version I recieved in email.

How would you respond to the objection that there "isn't any 'hard' evidence for the existence of God"?

I'd respond "I agree.  You refuse to take the Mormon view that God is physical, therefore, there couldn't logically be any "hard" evidence for God unless you arbitrarily defined "spirit" as "physical".

This complaint is commonly presented to young Christians

It's also commonly presented to Christians of any age, because it forces Christians to recognize that what they believe in, cannot be "proved" but only "inferred", and as such, is subject to numerous powerful objections.

and we, as their parents, educators and leaders, have a duty to help them respond.

If the Holy Spirit actually did anything more than exist as a biblical concept, i guess he would have a 'duty' to educate you as well.  But unfortunately, like the child who rationalizes Santa's inability to fit into a chimney, you don't care that nothing at all can be rationally credited to the Holy Spirit's direct intervention, you will simply tell yourself over and over that the Holy Spirit never does anything on his own, but only works "through" Christians...that way, you can always pretend that the Holy Spirit's work is real despite the fact that your own efforts are much better interpreted as  purely naturalistic phenomena.  Nothing was ever a more gratuitous afterthought, than "the Holy Spirit".  What are you gonna say next?  Angels are the only reason you weren't killed by a meteor today?

Here is one reasonable response we can give to skeptics, excerpted from a recent "Quick Shot" article:
“What do you mean by evidence? There are two forms of evidence: direct evidence (eyewitness testimony) and indirect evidence (everything else).

You started by addressing the question of "hard" evidence.  Since "hard" obviously means "direct" in this context, we have good reason to deny that "hard" evidence can also be "indirect".

Both forms of evidence are used to make cases in a court of law.

And hearsay is typically rendered inadmissible in a court of law, which would thus dispose of 99% of the biblical 'witness' to Jesus rising from the dead.  And that's just hearsay, when in fact the gospels have already been rendered inadmissible under the ancient documents rule...a rule used in courts that, with good reason, J. Warner Wallace doesn't think can help him in his desire to do what car salesman do...create a problem...sell the solution. That's right, kiddies...you cannot possibly live out your full potential in Christ unless you purchase materials authored by J. Warner Wallace. 

There is a large body of direct evidence for God’s existence, like the testimony of those who observed the Resurrection of Jesus

The trouble being that at best the only first-hand testimony to it is Matthew, John and Paul, everything else in the NT that testifies Jesus rose from the dead is second-hand, or other disqualified phenomena like dreams/visions, or testimonies that have been changed by textual variation.  I'd say 3 first-hand testimonies, whose first-hand nature is even disputed by Christian scholars (in the case of Matthew and John), is a pretty sad case for the resurrection of Jesus.  To say nothing of the other arguments that show them to be liars or deluded, such as arguments against miracles and against the alleged eyewitnesses' identities and authorship.

and the testimony of those who have experienced the miraculous intervention of God.

Sorry, for a couple of years I've been issuing a challenge to Christian scholar Craig Keener to provide checkable documentation for any "miracle" he claims has happened within the last 100 years, that he believes is the best attested. So far, no takers.  See here.  Likewise with every other claim propounded by those in Christianity who happen to disagree with their cessationist Christian brothers. (Isn't that a hoot?  Cessationist Christians believe miracles no longer happen, non-cessationists believe they still do.  Jesus, is there anything beyond Jesus' gender and God's existence that "Christians" agree on?).

There is also a large body of indirect evidence for God’s existence, like a universe that came into existence from nothing,

So god is like the parent who realizes the child is too ignorant to realize how dangerously they are to the camp fire, but who only uses "indirect" discussion and evidence to alert the child to this great danger.   You'll excuse me if I draw the conclusion that your camera-shy god's love for me is limited.

But for a more direct response: Since even Christian creationist organizations like AiG and ICR claim the big bang contradicts the bible and contradicts science too, you can hardly fault atheists who agree that the big bang contradicts the bible.  For example, Dr. Jason Lisle is a Christian astrophysicist who researches issues pertaining to science and the Christian Faith.  He says:

In fact, there are many contradictions between the big bang and the Bible.

...Therefore, for those who believe the Bible, the big bang is not an option. 

See here.  I'm an atheist, I'm not arguing that the big bang is false because it contradicts the bible.  That would be stupid.  I'm arguing that if even other Christians who are more educated on the big bang than J. Warner Wallace, insist that the Big Bang contradicts the bible, then atheists obviously cannot be considered 'unreasonable' to regard the big bang as unbiblical, and to accordingly laugh at J. Warner Wallace as somebody interested in pushing populist crap.  Let Wallace first engage the Christians who have formal education in astrophysics, who find the big bang unbiblical.  Let him host a debate between Christian apologists who accept it and Christian apologists who don't...then maybe his pointing to the big bang will appear to have somewhat more plausibility than the case of a child pointing to a dollar under their pillow as proof of the tooth fairy.

the naturalistically implausible appearance of fine-tuning in the universe,

The second law of thermodynamics doesn't say systems always tend toward disorder.  It says CLOSED systems tend toward disorder.

Evolution and the Second Law
Some critics claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because organization and complexity increases in evolution. However, this law is referring to isolated systems only, and the earth is not an isolated system or closed system. This is evident for constant energy increases on earth due to the heat coming from the sun. So, order may be becoming more organized, the universe as a whole becomes more disorganized for the sun releases energy and becomes disordered. This connects to how the second law and cosmology are related, which is explained well in the video below.

See here. Of course I would disagree with the view that it makes sense to talk about something to be true for "all" of the universe, since I view the universe as infinitely large and old, while the word "all" necessarily implies a limitation (all the bread, all the cars, etc).

The universe is full of stars which are sources of energy for the planets around them, so that entropy or disorganization can be stalled or decreased through energy input.  But for proof that complexity can increase without intelligent intervention, when water freezes, its atomic structure becomes more complex.  I guess this is the part where you insist that it never gets cold unless an intelligent god blows cold air?

the miraculous origin of life from inorganic matter,

God of the gaps fallacy.  Every time science admits it doesn't have the answer, you fill that hole with "god did it".  But it was only science alone that weaned you away from mistaking epilepsy fits for demonic possession...unless you wish to say that Jesus has imparted some of his power to epilepsy medication, and that's why this chemcical is capable of holding back the demonic manifestations?

and the improbable existence of information in DNA.

The way you idiots talk about the information in DNA, you would think that we could look at human tissue through a microscope and see various combinations of actual English letters.

All this indirect evidence is most reasonably explained by a Divine Creator.

Not when you remember that you cannot define "divine creator" or "God" in a coherent way without running back to your question-begging security blanket of "god's ways are mysterious".

Maybe I'm just stupid, but sounds to me like nobody is under the slightest intellectual obligation to worry about, or pay any attention to, concepts that cannot be coherently defined.  Pasting definitional labels on God is about as useful in the real world toward the goal of coherence, as would be insisting that Santa is a "special" human being who uses "magic" to deliver presents to the kids of the world.  That's also pasting definitional labels on Santa, yet does precisely nothing worthwhile in the real world.  Since the definition is based upon nothing in the real world, the attempt at coherence is abortive.  What else are you gonna say?  The big bag wolf takes medication for depression?

Do you think you might be interested in examining all the direct and indirect evidence related to God’s existence?”

Do you think you might be able to fulfill your Christian duties acceptably to God without purchasing anything produced by J. Warner Wallace?

As it turns out, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God.

But given that the way you define "god", this thing is infinitely more complex than anything else, thus the concept of "god" would rank as the lowest probable explanation for any phenomena under Occam's Razor...which says the simplest explanation that accounts for the data is more likely to be the correct one. Gee, how "simple" is "infinitely complex"?

Wallace then uses this pic, and I comment respectively:




First, calling the Comos a "room" logically implies there's an "outside the room", but the notion that there is any such place as "outside the cosmos" is foolish....I don't care how often you think about other dimensions, or how often you think your dead grandmother calls out to you from the clouds.

Second, the Big Bang is considered both unscientific and unbiblical even by Christian creationists and apologists.  See above.  Apparently, what exactly the bible teaches or doesn't teach on the subject is far from "clear" and only a stupid person would insist that somebody has an intellectual "obligation" to "correctly" understand unclear Iron Age texts on theology.

The universe does not appear fine tuned.  The creation of stars and planets is understandable in completely naturalistic terms once you know what you are talking about.  There is no such thing as full destruction of matter or energy.  The carbon and iron which result from a dying star flying through space, degrade and eventually get used again in the formation of other stars and planets.  See the First law of thermodynamics: neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed.  There is no such thing as brand new creation, anything that exists outside the mind is never more than just the reconfiguration of previously existing atoms.

Abiogenesis has not been proven yet, but the surprising results from the Miller Urey experiments showed that the building blocks of life did not need any intelligent designer to put them together.   See here for a primer, see here for more scholarly stuff.

Personally, given the fact that life is purely naturalistic, while "supernatural" is plagued by incoherence at the definitional level), I don't find panspermia (life originated elsewhere and arrived on earth via aliens or comets) to be more improbable than "god did it".  The truth is that the universe is infinitely large and old, which gives it plenty of time to eventually chance upon the right combination of materials that result in self-replication.

I cover the "limited universe" bullshit in my rebuttal to Frank Turek's objective morality arguments here.

See here for more of my answers to Wallace on similar issues.

If biological organisms display attributes of intelligent design, then apparently the reason carnivores inflict misery on other creatures is because god wanted them to be this sadistic before sin came into existence (see here).  Genesis 1:31 says God's creation, before the Fall, was "very" good, and this has created a storm of controversy among Christian apologists and creationists, because if the old-earth creationist model be correct, then the pre-Fall world, which God was calling "very good" was at that time filled with carnivores inflicting misery on other animals merely out of need to eat (i.e., God thought a world full of carnivores that inflict misery on other animals was "very" good)...which conclusion the young-earth creationists insist makes God into an evil sadist, since they say carnivorous attributes didn't start forming in animals until after the Fall. See  Kent Hovind clobber Dr. Hugh Ross on this point here at time code 1:28:00 ff.  Hovind says he doesn't think it "very good" that a lion should rip the guts out of a zebra...to which Ross had nothing much to say except how that the new creation, still in the future, would be "better"  (despite the obvious objection that if God is perfect, then whatever he created in a pre-fall world would have been not only perfect, but morally perfect, so that since nothing can be better than perfection, nothing in the future could ever possibly be "better" than the pre-fall state of life).

Wallace says 'evil and injustice persist' but this is only because he has a child's view of god's love...in the bible, the "loving" god sometimes takes "joy" in inflicting death, disease and torture on his followers when they stray (Deuteronomy 28:63).  the Christians who blindly assume abortion is sin apparently never read that part of the bible where god credits himself with all death (and since god is perfect, anything that god does, is morally perfect, such as doing what he does behind the scenes to facilitate killing).  See Deuteronomy 32:39.  I do not ask whether God can be morally good to kill.  I ask whether God can be morally good to cause one human to kill another.  But if you say the mob boss was morally good to plan and authorize a killing, you just said the punk who actually pulled the trigger was doing something morally good.  So that if you seriously believe that bible verse, then you are morally justifying all human murder, even if you don't realize it.

If you insist that the analogy to the mob-boss and his punk is not sufficient, maybe you should ask yourself why you bother attempting to use "human reasoning" in the first place, since in fact you'll quickly toss it out the window merely because it rebuts your theology. You are like a cashier who decides, based on her  mood, whether or not she will employ correct math when handing change to the customer.

Wallace then says ""Outside" the natural realm"", apparently aware that the concept of "outside the natural realm" is incoherent and would only be found plausible by those who already believe such "place" exists, despite the sheer lack of evidence for any such thing.

Wallace then says transcendent objective moral truths exist, but I've already destroyed Christianity's most vocal champions on that point.  Matthew Flannagan could not answer my criticisms of his objective-morality model and quietly stopped responding when I turned up the heat and asked him why he assumes child-torture is absolutely immoral.  He simply thought his position necessarily true and those who disagree with it necessarily wrong, no need to actually prove anything  See here.  I also clobber Frank Turek's best efforts to show objective morality.  See here.

Wallace then says "humans possess free agency", thus playing into a very popular concept held by people for reasons having nothing to do with actual study of philosophy.  But the term "freewill" begs the question "free from what?".  Free from the laws of the physics?  Free from the brain?

The trouble for the libertarian and others who believe in genuine free agency is that such absolute freedom logically results in irrationality...that is...when you wish to eat fast food and on the way you eventually decide against Burger King and for Taco Bell, genuinely free agency means there was, ultimately, no reason that compelled you to choose the way you did.   Your agency was just a coin standing on its edge, it happened to fall over toward the Taco Bell side of things, and there is no "reason" why it fell that way...just "just" decided at the moment to choose that choice.  Thus to say our agency is truly "free" is to say it is also free from the laws of causation, which automatically puts the libertarians in the same fantasyland as Eden and "other dimensions", and therefore imposing not the slightest scintilla of intellectual obligation on the materialist atheist to bother with such stupidity.

Freewill is also refuted by the fact that individuals have consistent personality characteristics.  Did you ever wonder why it is that kids, even twins, raised in the same house by the same parents, often display very different personalities even in infancy?  Since you cannot blame their environment, you have no other option except to blame the only other possible culprit...genetic predisposition.  This is why some kids survive abuse just fine, while others are turned into criminals because of it.  While I understand crime victims who say 'I was abused as a child too, but I didn't turn into a criminal because of it", the scientific truth is that a person's ability to counter the influences of their environment cannot be anything other than their genetic predispositions..

Freewill is also refuted by the fact that ingestion of physical chemicals can cause us to make much different choices than we normally would.  The child who climbs the walls all day long is doing so for chemical-brain reasons which we now call ADHD, which can be controlled by Ritlan.  What...does Ritlan have a spiritual effect on a child's freewill?  Did God invent Ritlan, or toss it down from heaven? Of course not, our decision- making mechanisms in the brain are nothing but pure electrochemical reactions.  That's precisely why physical substances are capable of causing us to decide things in ways we normally wouldn't.  Depressed people stop being depressed when they smoke drugs.  The good girl can be convinced to act immorally at the party if she drinks enough alcohol.  Calm people can be short-tempered if they drink too much coffee.  Etc, Etc.

Wallace will say that the brain's being affected by physical substances doesn't completely cancel the possibility that perhaps the mind merely comes into the body using the brain as an interface, and when the interface is chemically damaged, the resulting choices and personality are too.  But the stupidity of this response is found in the question "comes into the body from where?"  You guessed it...from another dimension.  Christians literally believe the mind originates in the twilight zone. They also believe in other stupid things...like the idea that atheists are under some sort of intellectual obligation to "answer" bits of ignorance like this.

Also, only stupid people think babies have freewill, so since everybody agrees babies don't have freewill, and most people think adults do, the question naturally arises:  why don't human beings exhibit freewill from birth...if in fact freewill is "free" from physical limitations, coming as it allegedly does from the spiritual dimension?  The honest answer is that our ability to make rational choices is an attribute we gain over time and growth, which therefore means the ultimate basis of our will is firmly rooted in the physical world, leaving Christians and their 'spiritual dimension' crap out in left field.

Finally, that the bible is of no help whatsoever in answering this question is clear from the fact that the bible did nothing to resolve the Augustine/Pelagius debates, and did nothing to resolve the Calvinist/Arminian debates, and did nothing to resolve the disagreement between Luther and Erasmus on the nature of the will, and has done nothing to reconcile the current church splits over this doctrine that these prior debates spawned.

Did those debates do anything to help today's apologists come to resolution on the issue?  No.  James Patrick Holding wants the world to view him as a "smart guy", yet adopts Molinism (the abused child produced by the Calvinist/Arminian stalemate), a stance that Calvinist "smart guys" Steve Hays and Dr. James White consider ridiculous and unbiblical.

And for the Christians who foolishly equate the mind with the spirit, they will find their dreams dashed under 1st Corinthians 14:15, where Paul necessarily distinguishes the mind from the spirit, which thus leaves open a biblical door to the possibility that the bible will allow for the "mind" to be purely and wholly physical.

And don't even get me started on the fact that Christians also disagree on whether the bible says man is a dichotomy (body + soul or body + spirit), or trichotomy (body + soul + spirit). Google "trichotomist debate".

So you are a rather stupid fuck if you think opening your bible will do anything toward guiding you toward "truth" about the matter of human freewill.  What...maybe you think the Holy Spirit is more interested in guiding YOU into the truth of such matters than he was in guiding past Christian giants like Augustine, Calvin or Luther?

Finally, Wallace says "consciousness exists in the universe", but even pretending for the moment the naturalistic explanations for this are weak, "god" remains an incoherent concept, so that because the naturalistic explanations are less incoherent, the rational person should favor them above the "god did it" excuse.   Learn how the advocates of various views respond to each other in Joel B. Green and Stuart L. Palmer, eds., In Search of the Soul: Four Views of the Mind-Body Problem (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005; 2^nd ed., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010).  See Christians disagreeing with each other about trichotomy here.

And I do not concede the weakness of naturalistic arguments for consciousness.  The discussion about freewill, supra, also shows the purely naturalistic and physical nature of the mind.  If a person can undergo a major personality change due to brain injury or disease affecting the brain (Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, including old folks forgetting names of family and forgetting who they are or where they live), then we do not immediately leap to "but couldn't there be another dimension that the mind comes into the body from, and when the interface is damaged, it falsely makes the will appear to be physical only?"

Instead, we draw a conclusion similar to the one we draw when we notice that a person's bicep is responsible for their during curls in the gym, and when that muscle is severed or severely damaged, they can no longer do those curls:  We conclude the basis for muscular power is purely physical...we do not conclude that maybe the muscle power comes into the bodily tissue from another dimension, and the physical injury giving rise to weakness merely inhibits the spiritual aspect from manifesting itself fully.

However, you can bet your life savings that if the bible had said the power of our physical muscles comes from the spiritual world, every Christian apologist in creation would be insisting my above-logic is merely "worldly" and "incorrect" and "not according to Christ".

Answering J. Warner Wallace on objective moral values

Some modern Christian apologists are really pushing this bullshit idea that you can prove God's existence by showing that some morals are objective, thus transcendent, and therefore, only a life-form higher than human life can properly account for the existence of such morals.  Some such apologists would be Frank Turek, Matthew Flannagan and Paul Copan.

And it seems that J. Warner Wallace has decided to cast his lot into this viper pit of word-games.  

Cold Case Christianity: Quick Shot: “There are no objective moral truths”

Quick Shot: “There are no objective moral truths”

 Posted: 22 Jul 2019 01:20 AM PDT 

 Response #1:
“It sounds like you’re saying that there are no objective truths about morality, is that correct?

Yes.  Morals are nothing but opinions that we get from either genetic predisposition or environmental conditioning, or both.  Furthermore, when you appeal to what most people believe about baby torture, you are violating the dictionary definition of "objective".

If so, how can that claim about morality be true?

Because the claim "there are no objective morals" is a factual statement, not a moral statement, therefore, the statement is not self-defeating.

If there are no objective truths about morality, then your claim about morality cannot be objectively true either.

I didn't say there were no objective truths.  I said there were no objective MORAL truths. Saying "there are no objective moral truths" is not self-contradictory, as the statement is not itself a moral truth.  There's no "should" about it.

Do you see the problem?

No, what I see is that you have confused an assertion of fact with an assertion of morals.  "There are no moral absolutes" doesn't say "there are no absolutes". 

Even you would have to admit that there is at least one objective truth about morality: that there are no objective truths about morality!

But that objective truth is not itself a moral, therefore, the statement is not self-defeating.  It is a statement of fact, and doesn't include a "should" component, therefore, the statement itself not a moral and thus cannot be self-defeating.

But if there are no objective truths about morality, your claim (that there are no objective morals truths) can’t be objectively true either.

Once again, the statement "there are no objective moral truths" is not itself a moral, it is rather a claim of fact.

This kind of claim is clearly self-refuting. The challenge isn’t whether objective, moral truths exist, the challenge is simply identifying them and explaining where they come from.

Good luck trying to do that.

From where do objective moral truths come?”

Fallacy of loaded question, there are no objective moral truths, and this factual claim is not itself a moral claim so it isn't self refuting.

Response #2:
“Let me give you an example of an objective moral truth that is not based on personal opinion or cultural consensus: ‘It’s never OK to torture babies for the fun of it.’

That is the fallacy of argument by assertion, you simply toss it out there as if there's no question that everybody would agree with it, and that those who disagree with it therefore do not have any significance.  Sorry, that's not objective, that's rather "picking and choosing".  You need to demonstrate why torturing babies is absolutely immoral, and you aren't going to do that by appeal to what most people believe about it.

As rational human beings, we recognize this simple truth.

Then as rational human beings, we recognize that your god is a sadistic lunatic, for torturing a baby for 7 days before finally killing it, which must have been solely for fun since God explicitly admitted beforehand that the sin in question had been "put away" and that David thus escaped the death penalty it deserved:

 11 "Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
 12 'Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.'"
 13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
 14 "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die."
 15 So Nathan went to his house. Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.
 16 David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground.
 17 The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them.
 18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died. A (2 Sam. 12:11-18 NAU)

Notice, God intended for the baby to die, but prolonged that baby's suffering with some type of grievous illness that tortured the baby for 7 days.

You will trifle that God didn't torture that baby for the "fun" of it, but according to Deuteronomy 28:63, God will take just as much "delight" to inflict similar sufferings on disobedient people and their children as he takes in inflicting prosperity and people who obey. See the parental cannibalism God threatens to cause in 28:53 ff

If a person (or even an entire group of persons) claimed it was acceptable to torture babies for fun, I bet you would reject their claim and do everything you could to make sure they didn’t engage in that behavior. Why?

Because of my genetics and environmental conditioning.

Because you innately recognize that this claim is not a matter of personal opinion or cultural consensus.

But the basis for the innate recognition is genetic predisposition and environmental conditioning.   If I had been raised in a criminal household or similar situation, my morals could have been corrupted enough to cause me to find fun in torturing babies after I become an adult.  Now what are you gonna do, say it is impossible to corrupt a child's morals?

You know that it’s objectively wrong to torture babies for fun.

Ah, you are preaching to the choir, not making an argument that refutes moral skepticism. Thanks for the clarification.  When you get in the mood to actually refute a moral skeptic, instead of just saying whatever needs to be said to make your followers feel better about their pre-chosen religion, let me know.

If you didn’t know that, we would question your sanity.

But your questioning the sanity of those who torture babies for fun, doesn't mean baby-torture is objectively immoral. 

The proper way to show a moral to be "objectively" true is to remember that the dictionary defines "objective" as

not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings;

 See here.

...then proceeding to show any moral to be objective without referring to anybody's personal beliefs or feelings.

You obviously fail that test immediately, because you immediately tried to premise the objectivity of the immorality of baby-torture on the fact that most people have personal beliefs or feelings that such act is horrifically unfair. 

Can you see how claims like this have to be objectively true?”

No, I can see that you prefer clever word games above arguments that are more plainly based on dictionary definitions of the key terms.

You know that it’s objectively wrong to torture babies for fun.

Then you are trying to draw the "objectivity" of the immorality out of my personal beliefs or feelings, thus violating the above-cited dictionary definition of "objective".  Thus you fail in this argument to show that baby-torture is "objectively" immoral.  Yes, I personally feel that baby torture for fun is immoral. But if you define "objective" according to the dictionary, you aren't allowed to use my personal feelings as a basis for declaring baby torture objectively wrong.  Most people think such act is wrong, but "most people" refers to most peoples' "personal feelings", again, forbidden by the dictionary definition of "objective".

Response #3:
“Some people have a hard time acknowledging the existence of objective moral truths because they seem difficult to identify. Is it wrong to lie? Maybe, but what if you are lying to avoid hurting someone’s feelings?

What if the Christian woman lies about the gun in her pocket to ward off a potential rapist?

Is it wrong to steal?

Depends on the morals of the person you ask.

Probably, but what if you’re stealing an activation code from a terrorist who wants to use it to detonate a bomb? How can any act be objectively moral (or immoral) if it can be justified in certain circumstances? Yes, it’s possible to rationalize certain acts, but to find the objective truth at the core of any action, simply add the expression, ‘for the fun of it.’

No, because the only way you can show that baby torture "for the fun of it" is immoral is by doing what you've already done...appealing to somebody else's personal feelings about the subject, thus violating the dictionary definition of "objective".

Is it ever okay to lie for the fun of it? To steal for the fun of it? The addition of these five words (‘for the fun of it’) expose the moral absolutes.

No, see above.  When you appeal to another's personal feelings about the matter, you are no longer demonstrating "objectivity".

It’s never morally acceptable to lie or steal for the fun of it.

Except when you are doing comedy to entertain others by saying things they know are not true or to get them to agree with you to a falsehood so the punch line is funny, whether in the context of professional stand-up comedy, or reading silly stories to a young child a bed-time. Once we find an exception to your proposed moral, it's no longer absolute...unless of course you wedge yourself down even further into the toilet of fundamentalism and insist that professional stand-up comedy and reading silly stories to young children at bedtime constitute sin?  Sure, you'd then escape this criticism, but you can also look forward to most of your Christian customer base thinking you went off the deep end.  They aren't going to stop watching Amy Schumer, nor are they going to stop reading nursery rhymes to their small children merely because J. Warner Wallace came up with a clever word-game.

These are objective, moral absolutes that apply to us regardless of our culture, location on the globe, or place in history. Can you see how these moral truths transcend our personal or cultural opinions?”

No.  If you are talking to a person who likes to torture babies for fun, your arguments fall completely apart, as you have nothing whatsoever to show such act to be objectively immoral, except the majority viewpoint of humanity.  But since majority views can be false, you aren't demonstrating the objectivity of the wrongness of baby torture by merely noting that "most people" despise it.

FAIL.

Yes, Mr. Wallace, Jesus said things logically incompatible with his being 'god'

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled.

Cold Case Christianity: Quick Shot: “Jesus didn’t even think He was God”

Posted: 08 Jul 2019 01:12 AM PDT 

Our “Quick Shot” series offers brief answers to common objections to the Christian worldview.

Thus encouraging your devoted followers to mistake superficial study with growing in the Spirit.  You may as well encourage Mormons to be sure and read one page from the Book of Mormon each day.

Each response is limited to one paragraph. These responses are designed to (1) answer the objection as concisely as possible, (2) challenge the objector to think more deeply about his or her claim, and (3) facilitate a “gospel” conversation. In this article, we’re offering “Quick Shot” responses to the objection, Quick Shot: “Jesus didn’t even think He was God.”

And as we'll see, you fail miserably, so we need not wonder why you constantly pander to people who lack critical thinking skills, and you conveniently never do what Frank Turek does, and debate informed skeptics who know the bible better than you.  You have to know that most Christians care more about the good feeling they get from your writings, and less about whether you can answer specific challenges.

For now, what Jesus allegedly said in Matthew 26:39 is logically incompatible with the notion that he is himself "god" or perfectly equal to god:

 37 And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be grieved and distressed.
 38 Then He said to them, "My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death; remain here and keep watch with Me."
 39 And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will."
 40 And He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, "So, you men could not keep watch with Me for one hour?    (Matt. 26:37-40 NAU)

if you were a dishwasher and you said to the manager "if it be possible, let me go home early, nevertheless not as I will, but as you will", it would be clear to any observer that your will was not always in conformity to your manager's will.  That much is obvious from Jesus' phrase "not as i will....".  If his own will was identical to the Father's, he would never have had any logical justification to talk in a way that makes his will appear different than the Father's

You will say Jesus was speaking from his human nature not his divine.  But even if we granted the illogical premise of a living being having two natures, you are admitting that Jesus' human will was contrary to God the Father's will.  That's theologically dangerous to say the least.  Wasn't Jesus' human nature always in perfect obedience to the Father's will?  You don't have a choice: you say "no" and you infuse sin into Jesus' human nature.  You say "yes", and you leave yourself with no way to account for his statement in Matthew 26:39.

Moreover, there is no sense to pretending Jesus could turn one of his allegedly two natures on and off like a light switch, therefore, he was in all likelihood speaking from BOTH natures whenever he said something.  After all, that's what a "nature" is, it is the base portion of a person that they cannot avoid implicating whenever they speak or act....in which case, it was his divine nature too that was saying "not my will...".

Wallace continues:

Response #1:
“Jesus consistently spoke as though he was God. All the other biblical ‘wise men’ – the Old Testament prophets, for example – spoke for God. They always started their declarations with ‘This is what the LORD Almighty says…’ or ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says.’ But Jesus never spoke like that. Instead, Jesus said, ‘I tell you the truth…’ Jesus never spoke for God, like the prophets who preceded him. Jesus spoke as God. Why would he speak that way if he didn’t think he was God?”

Mike Licona and Craig Evans don't think many of John's Christ-sayings are things Jesus actually said, and they accuse John's author of further "theological artistry" that sacrificed actual history for the sake of theology.  Clearly, you aren't engaging with skeptics, so your "jesus spoke more authoritatively than the prophets" crap does precisely nothing to disturb the skeptics.

Jesus never spoke for God, like the prophets who preceded him. Jesus spoke as God. Why would he speak that way if he didn’t think he was God?

Because the gospel authors were embellishing what he really said, which is a reasonable option among the available alternatives.  Now what?  Are you going to insist that skeptics don't know what they are talking about unless they embroil themselves in all of the ways that Mike Licona and Lydia McGrew disagree with each other on biblical inerrancy?  FUCK YOU.   Let god's likeminded ones get their act together first, before they pretend to go to war against skeptics.

Response #2:
“If Jesus didn’t think he was God, why did he accept the worship of others?

What Jesus thought of himself appears to have evolved over time (Luke 2:52), so your acting as if his recorded statements in the gospels are the end of the matter, is stupid.  Unless of course you specifically admit that you aren't giving these answers to refute skeptics, you are only giving them to impress your gullible followers, who, like Mormons, are ripe and ready to accept any damn thing that might look like it supports their faith.

The Jewish people were raised with the Ten Commandments, the first of which is: ‘I am the Lord your God… You shall have no other gods before Me.’ For this reason, Jewish believers did not offer worship to anyone other than Yahweh, and to accept worship as God was blasphemous. But that’s exactly what Jesus did… repeatedly. He accepted worship from his disciples, from those he healed (like the leper and the blind man), and even from the synagogue ruler. Why would Jesus do something so blasphemous if he didn’t think he was God?”

Maybe for the same reason the Angel of the Lord is not the Lord, but still talks as if he is anyway?

 10 Moreover, the angel of the LORD said to her, "I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be too many to count."
 11 The angel of the LORD said to her further, "Behold, you are with child, And you will bear a son; And you shall call his name Ishmael, Because the LORD has given heed to your affliction. (Gen. 16:10-11 NAU)
 11 But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
 12 He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." (Gen. 22:11-12 NAU)
 15 Then the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven,
 16 and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son,
 17 indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies.
 18 "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice." (Gen. 22:15-18 NAU)

Apparently, ancient Judaism had a doctrine that was convoluted:  a being was not "god", but yet could speak as if he was anyway.  Perhaps the infinite creator just couldn't think of a better way to make sure sinful imperfect mankind correctly understood his stupid shit?

Jesus accepted worship from his disciples, from those he healed, and even from the synagogue ruler. Why would Jesus do something so blasphemous if he didn’t think he was God?

Sorry, I don't believe everything the gospels say about Jesus.  Back up and try again.

Response #3:
“Jesus certainly said enough to indicate he thought he was God. He claimed to have the same place of origin as God (John 8:23-24). He said he had authority over the angels like God (Matthew 13:41). He even claimed equality to God (John 10:25-29). The Jews who heard him understood what these statements meant. In fact, they accused Jesus of claiming to be God and wanted to stone him to death for his claims to Deity. Have you considered the fact that the people who heard Jesus understood Him clearly?”

Have you considered the fact that Licona's and Evans' denials that John portrays what Jesus actually said, give skeptics more than enough intellectual justification to just laugh at the gospel of John and its lofty fraudulent theological bullshit?

The Jews who heard Jesus understood what these statements meant. In fact, they accused Jesus of claiming to be God and wanted to stone him to death for his claims to Deity.
 Our “Quick Shot” series was written specifically for the Cold-Case Christianity App (you can download it on Apple and Android platforms – be sure to register once you download the App). When confronted with an objection in casual conversation, App users can quickly find an answer without having to scroll beyond the first screen in the category. Use the App “Quick Shots” along with the “Rapid Responses” and Case Making “Cheat Sheets” to become a better Christian Case Maker.

And yet you also want your followers to think the Holy Spirit has any responsibility to do any work here?

But Jesus specifically counseled that his disciples should not worry about what they will say to others in the future, because the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance at that time whatever they might need to say:

 19 "But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say.
 20 "For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. (Matt. 10:19-20 NAU)

 12 "But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, delivering you to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for My name's sake.
 13 "It will lead to an opportunity for your testimony.
 14 "So make up your minds not to prepare beforehand to defend yourselves;
 15 for I will give you utterance and wisdom which none of your opponents will be able to resist or refute. (Lk. 21:12-15 NAU) 

Jesus also allegedly instructed his disciples to convey ALL of his teachings to future Gentile disciples:

 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.
 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."    (Matt. 28:17-20 NAU)

And like the typical Pharisee that you and other Christian apologists are, you will trifle that in context Jesus was only talking about legal persecution where by christians are dragged into non-Christian courts.

But that Jesus meant his words to have wide application is clear from his other ridiculous teachings, such as that the disciples shouldn't toil or spin in the effort to have daily food and clothing, but to take no thought for such things, as they would be magically given to the disciples as long as they fix their gaze solely upon promoting Jesus' bullshit:

 25 "For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?
 26 "Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?
 27 "And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life?
 28 "And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin,
 29 yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these.
 30 "But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith!
 31 "Do not worry then, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear for clothing?'
 32 "For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
 33 "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
 34 "So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. (Matt. 6:25-34 NAU) 

Since there is nothing in the context to indicate a limitation on Matthew 28:20, and because the entire context of the book of Matthew makes clear that the alleged Matthew-author himself thought future Gentile disciples needed to be taught the Christ-sayings found in what is now chapter 10:19-20, it is reasonable, even if not infallible, to conclude that the author thought all future Christians must be taught to obey Matthew 10:19-20, as well as live out daily the mandate to avoid toiling for their clothes and food.

Which means your cute little gimmicks are actually interfering with the Holy Spirit's intended spontaneous leading. Nowhere did Jesus ever teach his disciples to study the OT or to tell converts to study it.  He commanded the disciples view the leading of the Spirit as a genuinely sponteneous thing wholly contrary to the "prepare yourselves" stuff you endorse in this modern culture.

Nothing spells "gratuitous afterthought" better than Christians who credit the Holy Spirit with their marketing gimmicks.

Shooting down J. Warner Wallace's "quick shots": God SENDS people to hell

This is my reply to a "quick shot" argument from J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity: Quick Shot: 

“A loving God would not send people to hell”

Posted: 24 Jun 2019 01:05 AM PDT 

In this article, we’re offering “Quick Shot” responses to the objection, Quick Shot: “A loving God would not send people to hell.” Response #1:
“What do you mean by ‘loving?’

We mean the only kind of love you can rationally expect an unbeliever to recognize:  human love...which, if it exists, would never say that it "delights" in inflicting sadistic tortures on people, as God expressed "delight" to do in Deuteronomy 28:63.

A loving God must also be just, or His love is little more than an empty expression.

But in the bible, God's love is also manifested by unexplained apathy toward "justice" for sin, for example, while David's sin of adultery and murder required death under the Law (God's expression of justice) God also apparently was able to conveniently bypass that requirement of justice and merely 'take away' those sins in conveniently unspecified manner, in the sense of refusing to impose the just penalty on David.  God instead tortured a baby to death over a period of several days, not because of David's sin, but because the Lord's enemies were given occasion by that sin to laugh:

 11 "Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
 12 'Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.'"
 13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
 14 "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die."
 15 So Nathan went to his house. Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.
 16 David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground.
 17 The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them.
 18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died. (2 Sam. 12:11-18 NAU)

Let's see...God finds it this easy to exempt deserving sinners of the "just" penalty God required under law?  Apparently, god's own sense of justice magically becomes malleable whenever such justice might hurt his favorite political candidate.

If everyone was offered the same experience in the afterlife, how loving (or fair) would it be for Mother Teresa and Hitler to receive the same reward?

how "fair" is it that the guilty pedophile makes it into heaven just as easily as you do?  How "fair" is it to threaten women with rape, as God does in Isaiah 13:15-17?  How "fair" is it that sinless Jesus should pay a penalty he didn't deserve?  How "fair" is it that we inherit Adam's sin even though God could just as easily have prevented future generations from inheriting that sin? 

Most of us can think of someone who should be punished: serial killers, child molesters, rapists. I bet you can also think of someone worthy of punishment, right? How loving would God be to reward these criminals rather than punish them?

Very...God's love apparently sometimes causes him to use his magic fairy dust to change the attitude of pagan idolaters so that they do whatever he wants them to do (Ezra 1:1).

How fair would that be to their victims?

If you can employ "God's ways are mysterious" to get out of a theological jam, will you extend to skeptics the same courtesy?  Or is there some bible verse that says only conservative Protestants are allowed to hide behind that dodge?

Can a loving God be completely unjust and still considered loving?

Yes, God tortured David's infant son for 7 days before killing it.  See above, yet you still think God was "loving" regardless. God can also be "delighted" (Deut. 28:63) to inflict horrific torments on children, including causing parents to eat their own children during prolonged divinely-imposed famine (v. 56 ff).

How loving would God be to reward criminals rather than punish them?

How often does God "allow" criminals to escape justice?  Will you trifle that this is any different than 'rewarding' the criminal for the crime?  What else does such apathy do but embolden the criminal to engage in future criminal conduct.

If a parent "allowed" their older teen son to proceed unhindered in his known plans to shoot up the school, would they be exhibiting the same degree of respect for their son's freewill than God had for Hitler's freewill during WW2?  Is that loving?  Or did you suddenly discover how useful it can be to cry out "God's mysterious ways/God is holy and righteous no matter what" whenever expediency dictates?  Sure is funny that when "heretical" Christians use that excuse to escape their own theological difficulties, you don't find it very convincing.  Apparently, I missed that bible verse that says this excuse is exclusively owned by Protestants.

How fair would that be to their victims?

How "fair" was God in torturing David's baby to death?  How "fair" was God to threaten women with rape (Isaiah 13:15-17)?  How "fair" was God to the fetus whenforcing women to endure abortion-by-sword (Hosea 13:16)?  How "fair" is God when using force described as "put a hook in your jaws and turn you around" (Ezekiel 38:4 ff) to force certain nations to commit the sin of attacking Israel? 

If you wanna blow a mental gasket, ask yourself how god could possibly think it "sinful" for a person to act in the way that he intended (Ezekiel 38-39, forcing them to attack Israel, something he plans to "punish" those nations for doing)?  God is also telling unrepentent sinners to continue committing sin in Revelation 22:11.  Will god then bitch at these sinners when they fulfill this divine desire?

Gee, only in Christianity can God be displeased with you after do everything God wanted you to do the way he wanted you to do it!

Can a loving God be completely unjust and still considered loving?

Yes.  Since it was "just" to demand the death penalty for murder and adultery, it was thus "unjust" to allow David, obviously guilty of both sins, to be exempt from said penalty. 

No, you cannot argue that David was repentant and this somehow justified lifting the harsh OT restriction. The law of Moses neither expresses nor implies that one's repentance can secure them immunity from the consequences the law imposes on their capitol crimes.  Otherwise, when adults commit adultery 70 times per day and then seek forgiveness from the ruling priests and elders for each of those 70 times, the priests would be obligated to forgive them and exempt them from the legal penalty of death.  Such a possibility is neither expressed nor implied in the OT, and is implicitly denied in the NT statement that mercy was not even available for those who transgressed the law (Hebrews 10:28).

Response #2:
“What do you mean by ‘send’?

See the word "depart" in Matthew 7:23 and 25:41:

 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' (Matt. 7:23 NAU)

 41 "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; (Matt. 25:41 NAU)

In 7:21 "depart" in the Greek is ἀποχωρέω, a verb that is imperative present active 2nd person plural from ἀποχωρέω.

In 25:41, πορεύομαι is a verb, the imperative present middle 2nd person plural from πορεύομαι.  It means to "go".

As you know, an "imperative" is a command to do something.

Finally, that your stupid meandering "god doesn't send people to hell" is nothing but apostate liberalism is clear from how the NT presents the judgment of God as his sending people into eternal torment:

 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20:15 NAU)

Now what?  Maybe you'll trifle that "we throw ourselves into the lake of fire by rejecting the gospel?"

Then read the context, the 'throwing' occurs in the context of God's final judgment on the wicked as the world appears before him in his heavenly court (v. 12), and it is therefore showing an outside force imposing itself on unwilling sinners no less than one observes when unrepentant criminals are convicted in courts of law.

By the way, "thrown" is the Greek verb βάλλω,  it is indicative aorist passive 3rd person singular from βάλλω.  No, that "passive" doesn't mean "self-throwing" is clear from the way most English bibles translate it:

KJV  Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
NAS  Revelation 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
NAU  Revelation 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
NET  Revelation 20:15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire.
NIV  Revelation 20:15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
NKJ  Revelation 20:15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
NRS  Revelation 20:15 and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
RSV  Revelation 20:15 and if any one's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
YLT  Revelation 20:15 and if any one was not found written in the scroll of the life, he was cast to the lake of the fire.

Conservative evangelical Christian scholars agree that the heavenly justice here is reminiscent of the earthly justice of kings:

The final judgment is depicted in vv 11–15 in the traditional eschatological imagery derived from the role of kings as dispensers of justice.

Aune, D. E. (2002). Vol. 52C: Word Biblical Commentary :
Revelation 17-22. Word Biblical Commentary (Page 1104). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Then there are other NT passages that make it clear that the guilty criminals are not accepting their punishment, they are trying to avoid it out of fear of pain and misery, even if fruitlessly:

 15 Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains;
 16 and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;
 17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?" (Rev. 6:15-17 NAU)

Wallace fruitlessly continues:

Our eternal destination is predicated by our choice, not His.

You apparently are more interested in collecting Facebook friends in modern democratic America, than you are in reading your bible.

God wants us to join Him in heaven,

5-Point Calvinism, a legitimate form of Christianity that accepts the Trinity, Jesus' full deity, his physical resurrection,  salvation by grace, justification by faith, and bible inerrancy, teaches that God does NOT love everybody, and intended from all eternity to damn certain sinners, by refusing to change their heart, to make sure they'd never "choose" god.

So your answer is merely begging for the reader to automatically construe Calvinism as false, when in fact Calvinism and Arminianism have split the church since the 17th century, and before that, Augustine and Pelagius disagreed similarly.   If Calvinism were "obviously" unbiblical, we wouldn't expect it to have divided the church anymore than we expect the question of Jesus' gender to divide the church.

but He won’t force people into his presence who don’t want to be there.

But your God is "wrathful" in doling out his justice, and his forcing people to endure his fearful judgments is also clear from the bible:

 10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. (Rev. 14:10 NAU) 

In a context describing divine "wrath" and "anger" that brims at "full strength", it is perfectly reasonable to credit the "tormented with fire" to a torment that god is inflicting on sinners unwilling to endure it by choice.

 26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
 30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE."
 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Heb. 10:26-31 NAU)

 What a shame!  A Christian apologist, in all of his allegedly sincere "walking with Christ" and prayerful bible study, is more ignorant of the bible than an atheist!

Some people hate God;

I also hate the Big Bad Wolf and other fictional villains.  What are you gonna do, notify adult protective services that my delusions make me a danger to myself and others? 

others ignore Him entirely.

If God is going to deprive them of his direct communications they can experience with their empirical senses, God has no right to complain if sinners take their cue from him and likewise deprive him of their direct communications he can experience empirically. 

Draw close to sinners, and we will draw close to you.

They don’t choose to seek Him,

5-Point Calvinism says this is because God refuses to change their heart, which logically must come first before they can will to seek him, so blaming sinners for not seeking god is about as sensible as blaming dogs for barking.  So unless you are prepared to show Calvinism is "unbiblical", skeptics will have a valid excuse:  we refuse to seek God because only God can change our hearts, and he obviously doesn't wish to change our hearts.  If you can stop the fan's annoying rattling by fixing it, but you just sit there letting it rattle on and bother you, you have nobody to blame but yourself. 

You will say human beings are not analogous to inanimate objects, but Paul pushes his person/pot analogy to an absurd extreme in Romans 9:20-23.

and they don’t want to spend eternity with Him.

If you found out somebody tortured your baby to death over a period of several days (2nd Samuel 12:15-18), would you want to spend eternity with such a sadistic lunatic?  Me neither.  Glad we established at least some common ground!

God honors those kinds of choices.

But under Calvinism, we don't have the power to make good choices, so God's refusal to spread his Ezra 1:1 magic fairy dust on some unrepentant sinners is still the ultimate reason those particular sinners refuse to repent...and therefore you are being biblically dishonest by pretending that the sinner's accountability ends with noting that they refuse to repent.  They suffer from a freewill defect they are not capable of fixing, so they aren't going to repent in the first place unless God makes the first move.  God's unwillingness to change their heart is no less the cause of their resistance than is their own sinful state.

Who is at fault when your older teen, with your knowledge, gets drunk?  Them, because they had a choice? Or you, because you could have prevented it?

You will trifle that God makes that first move with prevenient grace which is enough to overcome the defective freewill, but which can still be resisted, but Ezekiel 38-39 proves God's ability and intent to force sinners to sin (i.e., put a hook in thy jaws and turn you around), so it follows logically that if God seriously wants you to do something, he will employ this level of force, he will not merely issue commands and arguments, then wring his hands in hopeful expectation that you'll deviate from the sinful course of action he infallibly foreknows you won't deviate from.

When you have infallible foreknowledge of how a person will respond to your command, you do not "expect" them to respond in any different way.  So if God in the bible acts as if he "expects" sinners to obey his commands, its probably beacuse he doesn't have infallible foreknowledge....or the ancient barbarians writing about him did so in an inconsistent fashion.

People who neither seek nor want God in their lives won’t be forced to spend eternity with Him.

And how fucked up would America become if our justice system took the same attitude, and said "convicted criminals who neither seek nor want jail in their lives won't be forced to spend time in it."

We also won't be forced to spend eternity with those who torture babies to death.  This is a good thing, so I'm not seeing your point.

How much more loving could God be?

If he stopped threatening to "stir up" men to rape women (Isaiah 13:15-17), that might be a start.   If he stopped torturing babies to death, that might show progress?  Or did I forget that you automatically equate the inerrancy of the bible with the inerrancy of your acceptance of classical theism?

Don’t you want Him to honor the choices of those who deny Him?

No and yes.  No, because we don't want earthly judges to honor the choices of those criminals who refuse to acknowledge the judge's authority.

Yes, because we also want him to honor the choices of some of those who accept him, such as little Christian kids who end up being raped, because God just stands there at the foot of the bed, watching and refusing to protect them.

People who neither seek nor want God in their lives won’t be forced to spend eternity with Him.

Criminals who neither seek nor want jail in their lives won't be forced to spend time therein.

Wallace, were you high on crack when you wrote this piece?

How much more loving could God be?

How loving is it to avoid forcing criminals into the jails they neither seek nor want to spend time in? Where did you get your idea of loving?  A toddler?

If our merely not being forced to spend eternity with god were all there was to say, that would be loving.  But the bible doesn't merely say God will honor the wishes of the unrepentant., it also says he will inflict torment on them against their will (i.e.,. "let the rocks and trees hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne", supra).  Under your idea of "love", God would not judge these people as long as they continued hiding, because they neither seek nor want that god in their lives.

(!?)

And don't forget that the case of apostle Paul (Acts 9, 22, 26) proves that if God really wants to, he not only knows about, but approves of, a forceful method of evidence-presentation convincing enough to convert even those who are in the middle of acting out their murderous hatred toward the Christian god.

What else was God doing when manifesting himself to Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus, except violating Paul's freewill?

Would it take too much energy for God to give a less convincing display to skeptics who are less inclined to murder Christians?

Maybe you think causing your opponent temporary physical blindness (the way God inflicted in Paul) constitutes "respect" for their freewill?

Response #3:
“What do you mean by ‘hell’?

That's your problem, as Christians disagree about the nature of hell, and whether it is a place of eternal conscious suffering or something less.  Skeptics are under no obligation to give two shits about biblical issues that Christian scholars disagree with each other about.  When God's like-minded ones get their act together on the nature of "hell", let me know.

Most of us hold a notion of hell that is shaped more by tradition and culture than by the scriptures. For example, the Bible never describes hell as a place where people experience torture.

Then apparently you never read Luke 16:

 22 "Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.
 23 "In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.
 24 "And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.'
 25 "But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.
 26 'And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.'
 27 "And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house--
 28 for I have five brothers-- in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
 29 "But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'
 30 "But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!'
 31 "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'" (Lk. 16:22-31 NAU)

Notice that last verse:  most Christian apologists don't believe it.  They think that proving the resurrection to skeptics is far more likely to convince them Christianity is true, than would a mere bible study on Moses and the Prophets.

Wallace continues:

Instead, it’s described as a place where people will be tormented. You can be tormented, for example, by simply making a bad choice (like choosing to deny God’s offer of heaven).

Sorry, but your word-game is abortive:  The issue is not whether torment can result from your own realization that you made a bad choice.  The issue is what does the bible say the nature of hell-torment is?  In Luke 16, a passage that has convinced millions of Christians over 2,000 years that hell is a place of eternal literal conscious torment, the torment is inflicted by "flame", and as shown earlier, Revelation adds to that flame angels as the instruments through which the torment comes.

The Bible describes levels and degrees of punishment. Some will be punished severely, some will only experience the torment and regret of being separated from God and believing family members for eternity. Have your notions of hell be shaped by popular fiction rather than the scriptures?”

No.

Our “Quick Shot” series was written specifically for the Cold-Case Christianity App (you can download it on Apple and Android platforms – be sure to register once you download the App). When confronted with an objection in casual conversation, App users can quickly find an answer without having to scroll beyond the first screen in the category.

One wonders how the Holy Spirit obtained the success he did before the advent of the internet.   You seem to think that Christians who are without your gimmicks are thus deprived of significant apologetics sources.  One would think, from Acts, that the Holy Spirit is quite as dead as your ceaseless employment of psychological tricks implies.  If you seriously believed the Holy Spirit doesn't need your gimmicks to do his job of convicting the world of sin, common sense says you'd probably pay more attention to bible study and less attention to interesting marketing ideas that your publicist tells you will likely increase sales of your highly unnecessary book.

Use the App “Quick Shots” along with the “Rapid Responses” and Case Making “Cheat Sheets” to become a better Christian Case Maker.

And don't worry if you are just a stupid teen Christian with nearly zero biblical knowledge.  There's nothing requiring a foundation of spiritual maturity or watching out for spiritual wickedness in high places. No, arguing about Jesus no more puts demons on your trial than would arguing about the sanitation procedures that must be followed by Denny's dishwashers.

Don't worry about whether you are even "ready" to do apologetics and battle demons at this level.  JUST BUY WALLACE'S BOOK.  If you find out later you've jumped into a spiritual wrestling ring you were never prepared to enter, Wallace will be happy to send you a google search list of christian counselors and Pentecostal churches in your area.  Have a nice day.  And don't forget to make a donation to our "important" work.  Nothing fails quite like prayer, and nothing succeeds quite like money.  Have a nice day.  Sincerely, J. Warner Wallace.