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.

Answering cerebral faith on the absurdity of "before time"

Evan Minton admits his beliefs about god violate human language, but his case for blaming the limitations of human language, sucks.  The problem is with the concept, not the language used to convey it.

See here.   If the post gets deleted, here's how I replied:

barryJuly 22, 2019 at 11:13 AM

You say

"I suspect the biblical writers also struggled to convey God in the state of timelessness prior to (whoops!) creating all things."

------I find it quite revealing that you admit you cannot describe your god without violating language. As you struggle to maintain your god's existence as logically coherent, you are missing the point: If you cannot describe your god's existence without violating language, you cannot blame a skeptic for taking the language-violation to be a logic violation and concluding your view about God in this matter is illogical.

Secondly, you simply pontificate that the bible passages creating this problem shouldn't be interpreted too literally. But you give no grammatical or contextual justification for a less than literal interpretation. It appears you insist on it for no other reason than the fact that it is your only hope of surviving a fatal philosophical attack on what you believe. Regardless, its pretty clear the biblical authors believed in a logically invalid way about God, you cannot make that go away by merely pounding your fist and screaming that this would be too literal of an interpretation. Otherwise, gee, maybe the bible passages that say god has eternal love for us, are also not to be interpreted too literally...maybe they are just another of the many alleged cases of Semitic exaggeration?

Finally, your beliefs about God are indeed illogical:

Premise One: the phrase "before time began" is illogical.
Premise Two: you believe god existed "before time began"
Conclusion: therefore, this belief you have about god is illogical.

It doesn't matter if there really is some higher reality out there which goes "beyond" logic: You cannot fulfill the apologetics goal of "demonstrating" such "reality" if the only way you can do it is by violating logic. If language fails you as you try to "describe" your theology, you need to be open to the possibility that the confusion exists for the same reason that square circles also fail the language test.

No, none of your arguments for god's basic existence work, so you cannot fall back on a basic existence of some god and then pretend like the fault is with the limitations of human language.

Furthermore, I'm only interested in what the bible says. Every biblical description of god is most objectively interpreted in light of how the originally intended and pre-enlightenment audience would have understood it. Every biblical description of god in heaven indicates events there take place with no less a sense of temporal progression than they do on earth, and there is on textual evidence whatsoever in the bible that such descriptions are merely accommodating. You have no textual basis to justify arguing that the writer is merely using "language of accommodation" in such texts any more than you could argue they use that device when describing people talking to each other down here on earth.

Sorry, but you cannot blame a person for giving your theology the middle finger after they have successfully identified its language-violations. If there is a reality out there that is beyond the ability of human language to describe, that's your problem.

You might consider that your obsession with apologetics constitutes your implicit belief that the Holy Spirit does nothing in your ministry...you either prove it all with human argument like a lawyer in a trial, or you fear the jury will have no reason to think your case is sound. The Holy Spirit is nothing but a gratuitous afterthought, you only add it in because the bible says so...not because the evidence indicates there's any Holy Spirit doing anything whatsoever to convince people of Christianity. A lawyer may as well tell the jury that no matter how convincing his case is, the jury won't be able to appreciate its strength unless the tooth-fairy opens their eyes.

my latest challenge to Matthew Flannagan

Readers of this blog will note that Christian philosopher Matthew Flannagan, who makes such a big deal out of the "fallacy" of moral relativity, quietly and conveniently stopped responding to me after I started battering him with justifications for moral relativity.

I recently posted another challenge to him at another one of his blogs, see here.  In case that comment gets deleted, I'm preserving it below:

Barry Jones 11 minutes ago ·

Dr. Flannagan,

What do you believe is unreasonable about the person who uses your professed degree in contemporary analytic philosophy, and their reading of the book you co-authored with Paul Copan (i.e., "Did God Really Command Genocide?: Coming to Terms with the Justice of God", specifically the parts defending Wolterstorff's Appropriation Model and Speech Act Theory), that you live in sin (i.e., for many years into the past up to and including the present, you have been and always are intentionally seeking out opportunities to "wrangle words", the sin forbidden in 2nd Timothy 2:14)?

14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.(2 Tim. 2:14 NAU)

Is that verse so clear from its grammar and context that you can safely determine that the hair-splitting trifles of language you undeniably engage in, surely aren't what Paul was condemning in that verse?

If the atheist was forced to make a choice, which person should he view as more likely to engage in the sin of word-wrangling? The average Christian walking down the street? Or a Christian with a degree on contemporary analytic philosophy?

If you wish to insist that your ceaseless arguments with other people about the meaning of words and phrases ISN'T the type of "word-wrangling" that Paul was condemning in that verse, then please provide at least 3 different dialogue examples of the sort of arguing over the meaning of words, that you believe Paul meant the reader to understand in that verse. From the immediate context, it sure looks like Paul was condemning word-wrangling involving Christian doctrine.

What's Matt gonna do?  Wrangle with me over the proper meaning of "don't wrangle words"? LOL.

Does the bible require Christians to do apologetics?  Yes.  Does the bible allow them to do the type of apologetics that involves their wrangling of words?  No.  According to Titus 3:9-11, you don't have interactive dialogue with those who deny Paul's veracity.  You "warn" them twicej (warnings don't require dialogue), then you are to have nothing to do with them.

 9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
 10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning,
 11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned. (Tit. 3:9-11 NAU)

Apparently, Paul placed more restrictions on his followers, than what he allowed for himself.  Probably because he felt that apostles had more privileges than non-apostles, or had greater spiritual power so that apostles could play such games with people without being as subject to the temptations of the devil as non-apostles.  So I don't care if Paul himself wrangled words, that doesn't automatically imply he wanted his followers to imitate everything he did.  Common sense says what the NT directly commands of Christians in general is far more imposing on their conduct, than their more indirect argument that they are allowed to do just whatever they find the apostles doing.  Paul also enraged entire cities to the point of his being arrested.  Gee, does that mean Paul necessarily wanted his followers to enrage entire cities and get themselves arrested?  If you did that, you wouldn't be able to form churches and obey the stuff in the pastorals on church government.  The last comment in Acts about how the Romans soldiers allowed Paul to promote, during house arrest, the very things that got him arrested, is absolute fiction.

Answering Cerebral Faith's 4 questions, plus a whole lot more...

This is my reply to an article by Evan Minton entitled

Cerebral Faith

4 Questions Everyone Investigating The Case For Christianity Should Ask Themselves

posted by Evan Minton on July 09, 2019  

When it comes to investigating the evidences and arguments for and against worldviews, we need to realize that we human beings are not mere thinking machines; only considering the facts and logic, and generating conclusions based on hard, cold rationality. We're not perfect, and one of the effects of the fall said by theologians is said to be "The Noetic Effect", that the sin nature affects our ability to reason properly.

Maybe that explains why apostle Paul prohibited the very type of "word-wrangling" that you ceaselessly engage in:

 12 If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
 13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.
 14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
 16 But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, (2 Tim. 2:12-16 NAU)

That is, while you should do 'apologetics' you must still avoid "wrangling words".  See Titus 3:9-11 for an example of Paul's idea of how to convince those who are in error.  they get two chances to shut up and confess Paul's belief true. If they persist in disagreeing with Paul, you avoid them thereafter.  There is no "constantly discussing" the issue.  Like so many other apologetics blogs and websites, you appear dedicated to violated this word-wrangling prohibition with all of your might, on a rather consistent basis.

Then you increase your sin by using your word-wrangles as a means to make money, by asking people to donate money and in exchange they can have more access to your word-wrangles.

Sin doesn't completely debilitate us from reasoning. If that were the claim, it would be self-refuting in nature for we could ask "Did you use your reason to come to the conclusion that you cannot trust reason?"

Good point, so apparently you agree that Paul erred by pushing the human/pot analogy too far in Romans 9:20-22?  I have to wonder why Paul didn't absolve sinners of sin right there, since under his pressing logic, pots avoid doing lots of things, such as "sinning".

Nevertheless, we need to be aware that biases, emotional like or dislike of implications, and other things can lead us away from the truth.

So can the belief that the Holy Spirit is empowering you to believe whatever you believe.  This "holy spirit" crap is precisely what makes many fundamentalists equally as close-minded to their errors as you think atheists are.  What's sad is that you'd think by being at least "Christians", the fundamentalists would have a somewhat better track record of recognizing when they have erred.  But no.

None of us is immune, whether we are Christian or Non-Christian, and each one of us needs to do deep introspection when we're evaluating competing systems of thought.

on the contrary, you are to blindly presuppose that anything against Christ is automatically from the devil:

24 The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,
 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. (2 Tim. 2:24-26 NAU)

Minton continues:

In this blog post, I will mention 5 questions we need to pose to ourselves and meditate upon when it comes to evaluating whether Christianity is true or false.
 Question 1: If I Knew Beyond a Reasonable Doubt That Christianity Were True, Would I Follow Christ?

Yes.  But that answer means nothing useful, since I might decide that the Christianity that is "true" is Marcion's gospel, which said the OT YHWH was a demon.  So my ability to be objective and answer your question "yes" doesn't really accomplish much in your eyes unless I get lucky enough to pick the particular set of beliefs YOU say are essential to salvation.

The first thing you need to decide is whether or not if Christianity were demonstrated to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, you'd become one of Christ's followers. If you knew God existed, would you worship Him?

No.  that would be about as dumb as a lower life form worshipping YOU merely because you are in fact, a higher life form.  Well your being a higher life form doesn't automatically imply that anything you do is morally good or realistic. 

Would you try to live the life that God wants you to live?

Not if you are talking about the god of the OT.  No, I wouldn't go around killing children even if I was convinced the bible-god was telling me to do it for the sake of his mysteriously good reasons.  I'd instead tell him to fuck off, just like I'd tell any enemy that is more powerful than I, to fuck off.

Furthermore I don't see any reason to give a fuck about obeying God, given that the arguments for literal conscious eternal torment are themselves unbiblical and contradict the type of justice the bible says God requires.  So disobeying god would only result in me dying and going out of existence, something I already believe will happen and have no fear of.

Would you give up anything in your life that He considers sin?

Jesus told his followers that giving up custody of their kids would cause material and spiritual abundance to flow into their lives (Matthew 19:29), but you are crazy if you think I'd follow that kind of advice 2,000 years after the fact.

If you hesitate or if your answer is no, then your problem is not with regards to the strength of the evidence for Christianity or lack thereof, your problem is either emotional or moral.

That's right.  Your God threatened to cause men to rape women (Isaiah 13:15-17), and like you, I consider rape to be without rational justification, so whoever causes rape is IMO best avoided or killed.

In other words, you simply don't want Christianity to be true.

If you mean I don't want to serve a god that inflicts rape and torture on children, then yes, like you, I cannot imagine myself ever giving in to the whims of such sadistic lunacy.

If Christianity were true, then you would have to repent or else face judgment.

Correction:  if the Christianity YOU believe is the right form, were true, then we'd have to repent or else face judgment.  But as far as I can tell, the Christianity of the NT contradicts the OT god's standard of justice and is not consistent about the nature of hell, so once again, I don't see the danger in telling your pedophile savior Christ to fuck off.  It apparently involves as much danger as giving the bird to the driver who cuts me off in traffic.  Let's just say I'm not exactly fearful of the wrath of an obviously fictitious god.

Rather than live life in open rebellion against God knowing that Hell awaits, they comfort themselves by talking themselves into believing that The Bible is nothing but a book a fairy tales.

But hell is contrary to the OT god's standard of justice.  So it's reasonable for me to react to the contradiction by viewing the OT as the golden standard.  Therefore eternal hell does NOT await.  Only physical death and extinction of consciousness...something I already accept without fear.

It's much easier to live your life in sin if you can convince yourself that there isn't someone who's going to hold you accountable beyond the grave.

If you intended to talk to stupid shit juvenile delinquents, then i guess you had a point.  But most of your readers aren't that depraved, so your characterizing them as living in sin is questionable at best and insulting at worst.  If you are so fanatical that you think I'm "sinning" by going to work everyday, guying groceries, paying the bills, and doing the daily routine most other Americans do, then i'm afraid your fanaticism puts you beyond any possibility of reasoning with.  You might not say its good to play with live rattlesnakes in church, but your bigotry and closed-mindedness are still as intense as it is for those fools.

If Christianity is true, then several implications follow.

But only after you've reasonably decided which denomination is true.  You aren't going to do that...not with evangelicals themselves being in so much disagreement they've been fighting each other for years over every biblical thing except perhaps Jesus' gender.

It means that if you're living in sin, you'll have to repent.

I'm not living in sin.  Sin presupposes god's existence.  God doesn't exist, for the same reason that bwickfullmers don't gofleding.  "God" is an incoherent concept.

Jesus said that if you even look at a woman with lust, you've committed adultery in your heart (Matthew 5:28), and adultery is one of the things God said not to do (Exodus 20:14).

But Jesus' refusal to insist on the death penalty for any man who lusts after a woman, indicates his disagreement with Moses.  You will say Jesus is God and can modify his law at will, but I say the prohibition on adultery is something Frank Turek would say emanates from God's morally good "nature", and therefore God can no more allow exceptions to his mandated justice, than you can choose to levitate yourself over a traffic jam.

If you like to spend your evenings downloading and looking at pornography, you'll have to get that out of your life or answer to God for it (2 Corinthians 5:10).

Or we can blame God, who, like the parent guilty of child neglect, has the power to make us do whatever he wants (Ezra 1:1, and Cyrus was a pagan idolater whose sins were therefore far worse than merely gazing at nude women), but who chooses to avoid employing that magic fairy dust. 

But porn watchers don't want to do that. Watching porn is fun! It's exciting! Porn watchers don't want to give up porn because they enjoy it too much.

If God didn't want me to watch porn, he'd use his Ezra 1:1 magic fairy dust to convince me otherwise.  If that crap works on pagan idolaters like Cyrus, well, I don't fuck animals or burn children alive, so if your god has a method of convincing that works on sinners far worse than myself, your god is a dumb fuck and therefore less likely a higher life form and more likely a fiction or lower life form.

Others may want to sleep around, bouncing from woman to woman. According to Hebrews 13:4, this is a no-no. If someone engaged in this behavior doesn't repent, they'll be facing judgment.

But the OT doesn't condemn the single guy who has sex with a non-virgin woman, and since you aren't allowed to add to the word of the Lord, (Deut. 4:12), that type of activity cannot be called sin.  See Romans 7:7 if you think you could have discovered coveting was sin without seeing it condemned in the Law.

Romans 1:26-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and 1 Timothy 1:9-11 prohibit homosexual relationships. Some people don't want Christianity to be true because it means they'll have to stop having sex with their same-sex partner.

Agreed, but i'm not homosexual, so, dismissed.  But you might wish to send those verses to James Patrick Holding. He is a closet homosexual or else was before I started telling the world the evidence for it, as abundantly documented at this blog.

2 Corinthians 6:14 prohibits a believer marrying an unbeliever. Some people may not want Christianity to be true because they know that if it is, they need to become Christians or else they face Hell, and if they're Christians themselves, they'll be prohibited from marrying their boyfriend or girlfriend who is also an unbeliever.

You are assuming Christianity's truth involves apostle Paul.  I say Paul was a heretic and liar, so Paul's legalistic bullshit wouldn't really bother me.  I'd become a follower of Christ, not a follower of his dishonest followers.

For many people, it's a purely intellectual issue. Merely being presented with the evidence for Christianity, as I've done in several posts on this blog and as I've done in my books, will be sufficient to persuade them to become Christians. For others, they will talk themselves out of any argument, no matter how compelling it otherwise would be. They have to. Their autonomy is at stake.

Not according to 5 point Calvinists.  According to them, we resist the gospel because God infallibly decreed that we resist the gospel.  Then God judges us with pain and punishment for doing exactly what he wanted, when he wanted, where he wanted, how he wanted, while he was pulling our puppet strings in those directions the whole time.

This is why the Christian Apologist and Oxford mathematician John Lennox said: "If religion is a fairy tale for people afraid of the dark, then atheism is a fairy tale for those afraid of the light."

Cute talking point.  Dismissed.

1 Lennox was echoing the words of Jesus; "This is the verdict; that light has come into the world, but people loved the darkness rather than the light for their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will come nowhere near the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed." (John 3:19-20).

And what would you think of an atheist who says "everyone who resists atheism is resisting correct knowledge"?  If sound bytes don't convince you, how can you expect sound bytes to convince us?

Ask yourself, am I suppressing the truth in my unrighteousness?

No, in fact you and most other apologists studiously avoid debating me despite the fact that I always argue on the merits.  Maybe you should ask yourself the same question.  You deal with me, and you start giving your readers less reasons to donate money to your word-wrangling ventures. 

Is my love of sin overriding my love for finding the truth?

No, I have extensively reviewed and meticulously falsified the dogshit put out by Habermas, Craig and Licona.

Do I love truth when it enlightens me, but hate it when it convicts me?

Maybe.  So what?  You are a sinner, your Christianity does nothing to make you more welcoming of uncomfortable truth, as evidenced by the obvious fact that you refuse to debate me.  I've said too much and debated too often for you to pretend that I'm just too ignorant.  Your motive to avoid debating me is your fear that actual truth might be different than what you've chosen to make money with.

Love of sin is not the only non-intellectual "reason" you might have for rejecting Christ. Perhaps, like Charles Darwin,3 you know that if Christianity is true, someone you loved who died as a non-believer is in Hell. If you can convince yourself there is no God and there is no Hell, you don't need to walk around with that uncomfortable thought. But, our feelings do not determine truth. How you feel about Christian doctrine is irrelevant to whether or not it's true.

But not irrelevant to whether I have rational warrant for rejecting your religion.  And yes, I've already decided that rape cannot be morally justified, so I am smart and wise to say "fuck you" to any notion of a higher life form that threatens women with rape, such as your God (Isaiah 13:15-17, Deut. 28:30).

Question 2: What Evidence Would I Expect There To Be If Christianity Is True and Is This Expectation Reasonable?
 The second question you need to ask yourself is how what kind of evidence you would expect to find if Christianity were true? What kind of evidence are you looking for that would lead you to say there is or is not any evidence?

What kind of evidence would convince you that space aliens control your thoughts from another dimension?

For me, a universe with an ex nihilo beginning that is impeccably fine-tuned to permit life to exist on both the cosmic and local levels,

The universe did not have a beginning, see 1st law of thermodynamics (matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed).

The Big Bang and you and Turek depend so heavily on, is considered unbiblical, unscientific, and a lie of the devil by multiple creationist Christian organizations like AiG and ICR.

Life is nothing but the natural result of the circumstances.  Gazing in wild wonder at life on earth is about as smart as gazing in wild wonder that mold grows in damp attics, or that a cup holds water.

the existence of the moral law,

Sorry, there are no objective or absolute morals.  You aren't meeting your burden by simply blurting out "thou shalt not torture babies to death solely for entertainment" and then pretending the debate is foreclosed thereby.  You are forgetting that there is a very good but purely naturalistic reason most people find baby torture immoral, and you would be forgetting that your own god tortured at least one baby for 7 days before allowing it to die (2nd Samuel 12:15-18).  All of the atrocities you think are absolutely immoral, are caused by God, including parental cannibalism and murder (Deut. 28:15-63, 32:39).

the modal possibility of the existence of a Maximally Great Being,

your worship of Anselm is truly revolting, since, like the term "god" itself, "maximally great being" is also incoherent, as "greatness" is horrifically subjective. 

and five historical facts about Jesus' death and what happened afterward and the fact that only the resurrection can account for all five of those facts is exactly what I would expect if Christianity were true.

You were already schooled by me on why those five facts do not place any intellectual compulsion on the skeptic, but you chose to let me have the final word, and you walked away from that debate.

If Christianity were false, the universe should have always existed,

Good call.  it has.

the possibility of biological life should be way more probable,

It is.  If another planet formed the way earth did, similarly near to its home star, there is no reason to think life wouldn't eventually form.

we should have no moral law written on our hearts,

We don't.  According to your bible, those morals come from a stick.  See Proverbs 22:15.

a Maximally Great Great Being should be conceptually incoherent,

it is.  What's greater, a god who can play guitar as fast as Paul Gilbert, or a god who has decided to avoid learning how to play the guitar?  Or did you forget that Paul prohibited you from word-wrangling?

and Jesus' tomb should have remained occupied with all of his disciples moving on with their lives as they did before they even met Jesus.

No, you need to surf youtube if you think religion cannot cause people to believe crazy shit upon little or no evidence.  And the evidence for the empty tomb is laughable.

But we don't live in that kind of world. 4
 However, that's just me. What kind of evidence are you looking for?

Can it be reasonable for me to arrive at that time in my life when I think I don't need to examine Mormon claims anymore, and to therefore draw a skeptical conclusion about it's ultimate nature? 

Then it can also be reasonable for me to consider that I've done enough study of the bible to justify drawing a skeptical conclusion about its ultimate nature.  You don't know where to draw that line, so you'll pardon me if I draw it for myself.

If you say "there's no evidence", you must either have not encountered the aforementioned evidence or else they don't fit your definition of evidence.

There's plenty of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.  But it is so horrifically lacking in plausibility and authentication that it isn't worthy of credence.

Moreover, is what kind of evidence you're looking for reasonable to expect if the Christian worldview is true?

Christianity is too convoluted and contradictory to predict what kind of evidence should be showing itself if the religion were true.  What kind of evidence would you expect if "aliens control my thoughts from another dimension" were true?

Perhaps your epistemology is too restrictive. There are those who hold to a view called Scientism. This view asserts that the only truth that can be known is what can be tested by science.

That's true.  The more you push data that can be seen and heard, the more you testify, even if unwittingly to the stupidity of being open to messages from aliens living in other dimensions.

If this view is true, then supernatural entities like God, angels, demons, souls, et. al. cannot be known since they cannot be tested by science.

Sure, there might be truth out there science cannot currently detect, but if that's the case, YOU wouldn't know about it either, because you don't provide any justification to think you are some special person with special powers to peer into the unknown.

Although, I do think that science can provide evidence in a premise in a philosophical argument for God's existence (e.g The Kalam's premise that "The universe began to exist").

The universe didn't begin to exist.  Try again.

If scientism is your epistemology, then it's no wonder why you aren't convinced by philosophical arguments for God's existence or the historical evidence for Jesus' divine self-understanding and resurrection from the dead. This is because philosophy and history aren't scientific enterprises. Science is great and it has provided us with much knowledge of our world over the past several centuries. However, it is fallacious to say that science is the only path towards truth. Think about it. Can the statement "Only science can provide knowledge" subject to scientific testing?

It doesn't need to be.  There are such things as axioms, which are beyond "testing".

Can you put the claim "Only what science can establish as true is true" underneath a microscope or a super collider? No!

But science isn't limited to what can be seen through a microscope or supercollider.  you are also doing scientific testing when you compare what somebody says about themselves, with their known pattern of behavior.  It's all induction.

These are philosophical statements not subject to scientific testing. Since they cannot be verified through science, and only that which can be verified through science can be known, then the epistemology of scientism cannot be known! Scientism is self-refuting. It collapses under its own criterion.

Sounds like you love the sin of word-wrangling.

Question 3: Am I Setting Too High Of A Standard Of Proof? How much evidence is enough evidence?

You cannot know, therefore, you cannot condemn those who decide for themselves when enough is enough.

You need to reflect on whether or not you're setting the bar too high.

The Holy Spirit needs to get off his ass now that he knows his sinners cannot do his job for him.  You will say arguments can never take the place of the work of the Holy Spirit in convicting a person of sin, but pretending your arguments can never do the job of full convincing merely turns the Holy Spirit into a gratuitous afterthought.  Can you imagine a lawyer or criminal investigator making his best empirical case, then telling the jury "empirical arguments cannot convince, only the Holy Spirit can convince"?

Are you a skeptic or a hyper-skeptic? What's the difference?

Nothing but rhetoric, sort of like you christians who constantly recharacterize consistent 5 Point Calvinists as "hyper-Calvinists".  No, they are just consistent, that's all.

I'll never forget a Facebook post my friend Luke Nix made several years ago. He said, "Hyper-Skepticism is having to drink an entire carton of milk before concluding that the milk is bad and should have been thrown out after the first sip."

And regular skepticism says if the first taste of milk is sour, you are a fool to think that if you keep drinking it, the sour will go away.  Well excuse me, but I've already tasted Christianity and found it rotten.  There is no intellectual compulsion on me to continually worry that maybe it was just my taste buds that deceived me into thinking the milk was bad. You Christians cannot even figure out what types of theology-milk are bad.

The fact is that the vast majority of the conclusions we reach, even in our daily lives, are based on probability, not absolute certainty.

Correct.

I don't even have 100% certainty that I'm sitting at my desk right now typing up this blog post. It's possible that I'm just a brain in a vat of chemicals with electrodes hooked up to my brain, and there's a scientist sending stimulates into my brain to make me experience the sensation of sitting at my desk, typing up a blog post. There is a possibility that that is the case, but that possibility is so unfathomably tiny that I don't give such a scenario any serious consideration. I am 99% certain that I am not a brain in a vat, but I still can't get up to 100% certainty.

Good point.

If you can't believe with 100% certainty that you are not a brain in a vat of chemicals, yet you still give mental assent to the claim that the external world is real, why wouldn't you give mental assent to the truth claims of Christianity?

Because, as i demonstrate over and over, Christianity's best apologists fail miserably to show their supernatural hypothesis of Jesus' resurrection is better than a naturalistic hypothesis.  It doesn't really take a degree in philosophy to recognize that reasonable doubt materializes where the experts fail to make their case.

J. Warner Wallace wrote that "In legal terms, the line that must be crossed before someone can come to the conclusion that something is evidentially true is called the 'standard of proof” (the 'SOP'). The SOP varies depending on the kind of case under consideration. The most rigorous of these criteria is the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard that is required at criminal trials. But how do we know when we have crossed the line and are 'beyond a reasonable doubt'? The courts have considered this important issue and have provided us with a definition:
 'Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: It is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.'
 This definition is important because it recognizes the difference between reasonable and possible that we discussed earlier. There are, according to the ruling of the court, 'reasonable doubts,' 'possible doubts,' and 'imaginary doubts.' The definition acknowledges something important: every case has unanswered questions that will cause jurors to wonder. All the jurors will have doubts as they come to a decision. We will never remove every possible uncertainty; that’s why the standard is not 'beyond any doubt.' Being 'beyond a reasonable doubt' simply requires us to separate our possible and imaginary doubts from those that are reasonable."5

I'm sorry to hear that you too give in the stupid "legal apologetic".  You have to be horrifically ignorant of court rules and case law if you think the gospels would pass authentication tests demanded by modern American courts.

Question 4: I Find Theological Position X Unreasonable. Is This A Central Tenet Of Christianity or Is This Debated Within The Church? Can I Be A Christian and Still Reject X?
 Just can't bring yourself to believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old?

No.  Neither can conservative Christian apologist and creationist Hugh Ross and many other creationists, to say nothing of the consensus of non-Christian geologists.

Don't believe a good God would causally determine people to sin?

Is causing another person to sin, objectively immoral, or do you have to first inquire as to who is doing the causing?  Why would you have to first ask who is doing the causing?  Might it be that yes, the bible claims your god causes people to sin, and that is the ONLY reason you don't immediately condemn the causing of sin?

Don't think a just God would leave people in eternal conscious torment?

No, not when he can get rid of sin by arbitrarily declaring it removed (2nd Samuel 12:13).

It's possible that these seem unreasonable because they are unreasonable. And guess what? Many Christians would agree with you. Not every position you find a Christian defending is central to the Christian worldview. Some are. You can't be a Christian and not believe that God exists, that God is one being who consists of three persons (The Doctrine Of The Trinity),

Sorry, but nowhere does the NT express or imply that confession of the Trinity is essential to salvation or to being "Christian". 

that we're sinners in need of salvation,

Jesus doesn't seem to do a whole lot of informing his Gentile followers that they need salvation.  Does god do a healing miracle for a Gentile and then just say nothing about her need to repent?

and that Jesus died on the cross and bodily rose from the dead.

Jesus obviously taught the true gospel before he died and rose from the dead, so the original gospel did not demand that people believe he died and rose from the dead.  If you think things changed since he died, that's your problem.

However, other issues are debatable, such as how to interpret Genesis 1, whether humans have free will or whether God causally determines all things, and whether or not God lets human experience eternal conscious torment or whether God annihilates the condemned from existence (a view known as Annihilationism).
 Don't reject Christianity simply because you find some secondary doctrine unreasonable. I myself find two of the three secondary issues mentioned above unreasonable. That's why I'm an Evolutionary Creationist and a Molinist rather than a Young Earth Creationist and a Calvinist.

Or maybe we can be reasonable to reject Christianity because its apologists appear eager in their effort to commit the sin or word-wrangling, and encourage their readers to do the same by pretending that the word-wrangling that goes on between Christians on the subject of evolution, creation, Molinism, Old earth creationism and Calvinism are useful and lead to the edification of the hearers.  I suggest you read 2nd Timothy 2:14, ALL of it.

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.