Month: October 2016

Some atheists seem to think that simply pronouncing anything non-material to be childish is refutation of the non-material (this would, apparently, include their own thoughts). Now, since I qualified the statement with “Some” and “seem” it may not be a good idea to comment, “I do not…” since I reference those who do.

An anecdote with which to begin: An atheist wrote to me and proclaimed some form of victory in stating that his young son had asked his Sunday School teacher how the carnivores did not eat the other animals on Noah’s ark (I do not know if the son of the atheist attends Sunday School due to a mixed marriage, cultural conventions or what have you).

Reportedly, the teacher turned red and changed the subject.

It is one thing for a child to make a childish statement based on childish reasoning and be satisfied. It is quite another for an adult to reward such childish notions and then go on to proudly promulgating them.
I simply asked this atheist if his son also asked the teacher how the local zoo keeps the carnivores from eating the other animals and that was the end of the discussion as I received no response.

It is widely known that some atheists rejected God in their childhood, based on child like reasons, have not matured beyond these childish notions and thus, maintain childish-emotional reactions toward the idea of God (many actually confuse rejection of “religion” with rejection of God. And again, I said “some”).

This fact rears itself by references to the Bible as “a magic book” or “fairy-tales,” Jesus’ miracles as “magical powers,” and God as an “imaginary friend,” “sky daddy” or “super friends” who is likened to “fairies,” “gnomes” and even “the Invisible Pink Unicorns” and “the Flying Spaghetti Monster.” Evidence of these facts is ubiquitous; here are two such examples:

Lewis Wolpert – Still a Child at Heart

Why Atheism is chosen

No doubt that this tickles those who already agree but to the rest of us it is all too reminiscent of playground bullying and role playing with superheroes. What next, will they triple-dog-dare theists to debate? Not bloody likely as yet again, the most intelligent, well informed and vociferous atheist in the world cower from debate.
As noted in the essay The New (Emergent) Atheists, part 2 of 4 the New Atheist movement, in particular, is peppered with immaturity. Immaturity is amusing; inciting the poking of fun and ridiculing as replacements of reasoned discourse.

Here is another example from Rita De Alverez’s book The Long Journey of My De-Conversion:

The beginning of my de-conversion was not about doubting the existence of God. It began when He became irrelevant. What kind of deity allows, out of impotence or apathy, innocents to needlessly suffer? There is no excuse. Such a god is unworthy of affection or loyalty. Nor could I expect this deity to protect me and my child from the evils that he allowed to befall others more virtuous than myself. Like letting go of a cherished baby blanket, a hopeless romance or finally leaving home for good, one gets to this point only when one is ready. One has “God” as long as one needs a god. I know many never reach this conclusion. I did and it’s as simple as that.

Firstly, we should most certainly be empathetic to the concern about suffering. Most important in considering such concerns is that on this topic there are, at least, two main issues: the logical problem of suffering and the emotional problem of suffering. One could provide a logically airtight refutation of the problem of evil but the suffering person will surely compare the abstract argumentation against the tangible suffering which they are emotionally felling. See the problem? Argument versus sensation.
Yet and ultimately, the the problem of evil is a logical and theological issue and must be dealt with as such. When someone is suffering you do not philosophize but rather, empathize, listen to them, comfort them and then, maybe, get around to logic at some future point.
Since I dealt with this issue in detail in the essay Quentin Smith – The Gratuitous Fallacy I will merely point out that 1) she does not know that the suffering is needless and 2) as to what kind of deity allows it; a deity who knows better than do we.

Is there “no excuse”? The logical resolution of the problem of evil asserts that there is not just an excuse but a reason. If God has a reason for allowing evil/suffering then the logical problem of evil is defeated. Moreover, this could be one single reason, could be a reason of which we are not aware, could be one with which we would disagree. Our opinion as to the reason is irrelevant as I may be said to have been evil to stand by and do nothing when my son suffered while someone stabbed him until I point out that he was a newborn and the nurse stabbed him with a needle in order to check his blood sugar. On the surface, I allowed suffering even whilst possessing the power to stop it. Yet, on the deeper level I had a reason and knew that momentary suffering would amount to an assurance of health. Thus, Such a god is not unworthy of affection or loyalty as such a God knows better and has a reason.

What we also see in Rita De Alverez is a claim from authority as an ex-Christian but one who rejected not biblical/Christian theology but rejected a straw-man, a straw-God. She states that her “cherished baby blanket” was that God would protect her and her child from evils. Yet, the Bible assures us that “in this world you will have trouble” (John 16:33) so that when we have trouble we are not shocked that we are having trouble.

Ultimately, being a strictly dogmatheistic theologian, as are all atheists, she considered the world around her, concocted a theology which demanded that if God is then God would…and since God does not…then God is not and thus, rejected a god of her own making and it’s as simple as that (see Fundamentalist Theologian Asks: “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” and “Why Does God Hate Amputees?” and Atheism’s arguments against theism, or Atheism’s “atheology”).

Now, again, being emotionally empathetic to a real person’s real concerns we must, nonetheless, consider the logic in noting that her invented god was utilitarian—god existed to serve her. You may recall that in the essay ITS NAME IS DOOM I quoted Martin Buber on the “deactualized self” in which he noted that when “The capricious man…says You, he means: You, my ability to use!”[1] Likewise, when Rita De Alverez says God, she means, God, my right to wish fulfillment. Imagine looking at a person who has a mirror strapped around their head and you will get the picture; you would see other people only as reflections of yourself, as utilities from which to get that which you desire.

So, now Rita De Alverez has rejected God. Now what? Is the suffering gone? Will no harm come to her? Has anything changed at all? No. Suffering and harm continue to plague her and now, she does not even have God to blame anymore.
But now there is an odd sort of comfort in accepting the un-evidenced dogmatheistic assertion that there is no God and that since the universe is cold and uncaring we can only expect that “in this world you will have trouble.”

As Dan Barker so aptly stated it, “There is no moral interpreter in the cosmos, nothing cares and nobody cares…what happens to me or a piece of broccoli, it won’t [matter]. The Sun is going to explode, we’re all gonna be gone. No one’s gonna care” (see here).

In closing, I wonder how, in a cold and uncaring universe, she defines “evil” or “suffering”? Surely, based upon personal preferences which are premised upon personal preferences. Yet, since we know for a fact that suffering, such as the poking of a needle, can be a very, very good and moral thing—how do we then condemn suffering in general as being arbitrary, meaningless, gratuitous, etc.?

You see, Jacob could tell his brothers who sold him into slavery, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive” (Genesis 50:20).
In affirming that “in this world you will have trouble…” the ultimate—ultimate I say—atheist answer is “…and then you die.” The ultimate answer of Jesus is “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).

Atheism makes evil and suffering even worse by 1) not ultimately doing anything about it, 2) guaranteeing that it has no ultimate purpose or meaning, 3) not being able to redeem it, 4) making it for the benefit of the evildoer who enjoys themselves and ultimately gets away with it and thus, 5) ensuring that there is not ultimate accountability or justice.

The fact of evil and suffering in the world is one of the very best reasons for rejecting atheism.

[1] Martin Buber (Walter Kaufmann, trans.), I and Thou (New York: Scribner’s, 1970), p. 111

Marcus, of the blog What Had Happen′ Was….., got himself involved in bit of a polemical fracas.

Unfortunately his opponent was very successful.

Indeed, his opponent, who’s pseudonym is Beechbum, succeeded in alerting us as to how not to argue, provided us a virtual list of atheist talking points, and thus, succeeded in discrediting himself whilst leaving Marcus’ points unscathed.

Marcus responded to his Beechbum point by point in the post Response to Hammock Highlights: In Defense of Rational Thought. I thought that it may be instructive to merely point out that Beechbum peppered his arguments with: 1. Arguments from a lack of knowledge of the Bible’s concepts, contents and contexts.

2. Arguments from outrage—something makes me angry so it must be wrong and I do not have to propose an argument but merely assert outrage.

3. Arguments to ridicule—something strikes me as silly and so it must be wrong and I do not have to propose an argument but merely poke fun of it.
4. Arguments from personal incredulity—I find it hard to believe something or, simply do not believe it, and so it must be wrong and I do not have to propose an argument but merely assert my lack of belief in it.
5. Arguments from emotion—replacing reasoned discourse with emotionally charged statements that are very exciting and try very, very hard to hide a lack of rebuttal by replacing argument with seeking to cause emotion in the audience.

Let us consider a sample of these and then you can head over to Marcus’ blog and see how he responded:

Here is a sample of the emotional and belligerent grenades:

…fundamentalist diatribe…apologetics are the greased pig…a sea of ignoramuses…your god(s) is a contemptible war monger…sadistic artifice of the deluded…typical in Bronze age cultures…your mythical patriarchal deity…blood lust…mythical patriarchal deities…delusions…manufactured self-loathing of Christians…this preposterously insane concept…absurdities…ethical atrocities…fundamentalists…that’s just sick…mythical creator in this bronze age story…distorted superstitious irrationality…It’s all a script for a sick ‘B’ movie…our father who art in heaven blah blah blah…apologetics are so lame as to be embarrassing…This sky fairy of yours…what fearful people do to feel good like a child sucking their thumb, holding on to that security blanket of eternal life…security blanket…tyranny of theocracy…

Beechbum; “the bible is a work that was canonized 1,685 years ago, when it was transliterated, edited, then rewritten into a form markedly different than the book now being discussed…”
Popular talking point indeed yet, fallacious; my essays responding to Bart Ehrman may be instructive on this point.

Beechbum; the Bible “has been completely discredited as a collection of lies, myths and allegories”
This is indicative of Beechbum’s generic, generalized, grandiose, baseless and un-evidenced assertions.

Beechbum; “apologetics that continually start with the conclusion that god(s) exist, then work out the story in reverse.” The apologetics that continually start with the conclusion that god(s) exist, then work out the story in reverse are the apologetics that continually start with the conclusion that god(s) exist, then work out the story in reverse. Yet, the apologetics that do not continually start with the conclusion that god(s) exist, then work out the story in reverse do not continually start with the conclusion that god(s) exist, then work out the story in reverse.

The essay On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al. may be instructive on this point.

Next come a familiar litany of unfounded, unhistorical, un-argued references to slavery, genocide and human sacrifice. Having dealt with these elsewhere I will simply provide the following as resources in responding to these: slavery here, human sacrifice here..Note the point that even in condemning slavery, genocide and human sacrifice not one single argument is offered but mere outrage.

Beechbum references that God “commanded the deaths of all those poor Amalekites.” It never ceases to amaze me how in their zeal to condemn any and all things Jewish and Christian so many atheists overlook or excuse the utter brutality of Gentile Pagans. Poor Amalekites? The Amalekites waited until the, still itinerant, Israelites were without water (in the desert) so that they and their livestock were about to die of thirst and then decided that it would be a good time to attack them as “The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim” (see Exodus 17). What about “poor Israelites”? Indeed, the poor Amalekites thought the following to be a good strategy “When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind” (Deuteronomy 25:18). They waited for the most worn out and slow to lag behind and slaughtered them. No wonder that in 1st Samuel 1:2 some translation use “ambush” or “waylaid” referring to lying in wait for and attack, to accost or intercept unexpectedly. This is even though God had purposefully had the Israelites avoid them “the Amalekites and the Canaanites dwell in the valley; tomorrow turn and move out into the wilderness by the Way of the Red Sea” (Numbers 14:25), still the poor Amalekites sought the Israelites and attacked, “Then the Amalekites and the Canaanites who dwelt in that mountain came down and attacked them” (Num 14:45). Thus, in self defense, “Moses said to Joshua, ‘Choose some of our men and go out to fight the Amalekites.’”Also, “Whenever the Israelites planted their crops, the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern peoples invaded the country” (Judges 6:3). The poor Amalekites also joined Moad and the Ammonites in attacking Israel (Judges 3:12-13). They also joined the Midianites “and other eastern peoples” against the Israelites (Judges 3:33, 7:12).

This was why “Saul attacked the Amalekites” (1st Samuel 15:7).

Beechbum references “a jealous god(s).”
He does not seem to consider the distinction between being jealous “of” and being jealous “for.” God is never jealous “of” anyone/thing but He is jealous “for” us. He writes “god(s)” due to a misunderstanding of the Trinity, to which we shall get.

Beechbum; “slaves are mentioned in the ten commandments (the tenth one about coveting maidservants or menservants)”
This is another unhistorical and uncontextual as what he apparently hopes that you think of when he say “slave” has nothing to do with being a “maidservant” or “manservant.”

Beechbum; “The bible or god(s) character is an observers opinion”
This seems to be stating that the bible’s, or God’s, character is judged based on an observer’s opinion.
What a fascinating admission of the utter relative nature of his condemnations as they are not absolute but relative to his personal preferences which are premised on his personal preferences.

Beechbum; “Our morality is the result of millions of years of evolution”
Indeed, evolution functions based on survival of the fittest and eating your neighbor—great moral system.

Beechbum; “a bronze age tribe of desert goat herders…typical in Bronze age cultures…bronze age myths…mythical creator in this bronze age story”
Genetic fallacy aka ad hominem; it is no refutation to merely note when a concept came about.

Beechbum; “‘infinite punishment for finite deeds’”
This misses the point that hell is about a person choosing eternal damnation rather than eternal forgiveness (see here and here). They do not choose God and so in choosing sin they choose to keep sin eternally. In the history of humanity no one has ever argued that a punishment is to last as long as it took to commit a crime. Imagine someone who shot another to death; since it takes less than one second to pull the trigger they will spend less than one second in prison.

Hell is eternal because sin is eternal.

Beechbum; “No one can…no one can….No one should…I can’t believe anyone would…”
This is part of the Beechbum’s very own dogmatheistic authoritarian dictates; his very own thou shall not and thou shall. The “I can’t believe anyone would” is an arguments from personal incredulity; truth is not based on what Beechbum can or cannot believe.

Beechbum; “The genius of our Founding Fathers…”
Indeed, the “The genius of our Founding Fathers in this regard was the realization that” they must declare our independence, via the Declaration of Independence, not upon human authority but upon that of “our creator…nature’s God” who gave us rights which then the government protects.

Beechbum; “the crucifixion narrative – never happened and that’s the good news.”
No evidence is provided for this positive affirmation of the crucifixion’s non-occurrence; it is a merely argument from dogmatheistic authority.

Beechbum; “The trinity is a load of irrationality…god was himself and JC and the holy spirit, monotheism if one closes one eye and the brain when looking into the apologetics. Do you feel stupid yet?” This is a great example of Beechbum’s modis operandi as he combines an argument from personal incredulity with a lack of knowledge of the Bible’s concepts, contents and contexts and an argument to ridicule.

Again, something may strike us as absurd but also be true such as that light behaves as both a particle and a wave—as Prof. Richard Lewontin wrote:

What seems absurd depends on one’s prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity “in deep trouble.” Two’s company, but three’s a crowd.

For an exposition of the Bible’s elucidation of the Trinity see the parsed essay that began with God’s Nature and Trinitarian Doctrine and ended with List of Relevant Biblical Citations.
Note that philosophy and science quite logically lead to the conclusion that the universe has a creator and even implies some of the creator’s characteristic—as elucidated in On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al. We may logically conclude that this creator existed beyond/outside of time, space and matter and is thus timeless/eternal, spaceless/not limited by spatial dimensions/not restricted by locality and immaterial/non-physical/without extension in space/spirit.

Now, attempt to ascertain whether a description of this creator as one being yet, three persons, or one what yet, three whos, is sensical or nonsensical. You will readily discern that we simply have no way of conceptualizing what it is like to exist beyond/outside of time, space and matter and that thus.

The Trinity may not be provable merely by observations of nature yet, it is no refutation to charge the doctrine with irrationality; it is not tri-theism, not a triad, not a tripartite, it does not assert that 1+1+1=3 or any such thing. It constructs the doctrine of the Trinity where it may very well exist; beyond that which we experience directly: time, space and matter.

Beechbum; “This god character is, without a doubt, extremely evil”
Another unfounded argument from outrage as he never even gets around to defining “evil.”

Beechbum; “those perpetrating the most heinous crimes against humanity, have done so using the instruments of religious inculcation…” This is a very, very, very popular well-within-the-box-atheist-group-think-talking-point whose discrediting is long overdue. It has, in fact, been discredited yet for personages such as Beechbum facts cannot win out over a good polemic.

Consider that the “Encyclopedia of Wars” (New York: Facts on File, 2005) was compiled by nine history professors who specifically conducted research for the text for a decade in order to chronicle 1,763 wars. The survey of wars covers a time span from 8000 BC to 2003 AD. From over 10,000 years of war 123, which is 6.98 percent, are considered to have been religious wars.

Beechbum; “smarting off to ones parents is a capital crime in the ten commandments, punishable by death”
Herewith Beechbum joins The Sam Harris-Cliff Walker-Richard Dawkins School of Biblical Illiteracy.
It is fascinating to note that when Richard Dawkins mentioned this, he referred to “disobedient children.”[1]
When Sam Harris mentioned it he referred to children who “talk back to us.”[2]
Cliff Walker states “Execute stubborn kids”[3] and manipulates the text via an ellipses points filled conveniently selective quotation.
Considering the immediate and greater context we note that the Bible refers to stubborn, rebellious, disobedient, gluttonous, drunkards who “smiteth” and curse their parents and have already been chastened (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9 and Deuteronomy 21:18).
Thus, we are not dealing with little Johnny who refuses to put his toys away or says, “No!” to mommy and daddy. Rather, the references are not to a little child but to someone who is stubborn in their rebellious, disobedience and is violently drunk to the point that they beat up their very own parents, lives off of their hard work in a gluttonous manner, then curses them, and has already been chastened. Also, in order to carry out a stoning there had to be at least two eyewitnesses.

Beechbum; “Christians…don’t even know that they are using religion in place of actually thinking”
Did you get that? He doeth bequeath that the world’s 2.1 BILLION Christians (and that does not count those who lived in the past 2,000 years) are not thinking personages. The generalized, generic and malicious nature of the statement discredits itself.

Beechbum; “brain washing, inculcating, and indoctrinating children”
Another very, very, very popular well-within-the-box-atheist-group-think-talking-point which has been responded to and discredited in various ways here.

Beechbum; “Christianity has never given humanity anything substantive, science has progressed in spite of religion which is only the organization of primitive superstitions into a force for totalitarianism” Obviously, another generalized, generic and malicious statement that is devoid of evidence. Also, a good example of an atheist who appears to think that referencing “science” makes some sort of point for atheism and against Christianity.

The fields and methods of science were established by theists—mostly Jews and Christians—who premised their conception of science upon their theism: God created a rational creation which humans may discern, explore and understand.

Marcus offered a couple of links in responding to this point. I would note:
Philip J. Sampson, 6 Modern Myths About Christianity and Western Civilization
James Hannam, God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science (also see Christianity and the Rise of Science)
Nancy Pearcey, Charles Thaxton and Marvin Olasky, The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy
The American Scientific Affiliation’s History of Science and Christianity,
Etc., etc., etc.

[1] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006), pp. 249-250
[2] Harris, The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos also Sam Harris, Sam Harris Takes On the Muslim Cartoon Controversy and His Critics
[3] See Positive Atheism – Cliff Walker : Weak Bible Week Poster

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

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

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

A seemingly rather picante atheist has asked theists to Prove “god”.

I am afraid that my first reaction is that the challenge in question should not have been worded Prove “god” but “Prove” god as for all of his demanding he does not define what he would consider proof.

This is his challenge:

I saw this on another forum and figured it was too good to pass up, so I took it and tweaked it a bit. Here’s the jist: I want you to PROVE; without a shadow of a doubt, that there is a “god”

However, there are a few ground rules.1. Can not use the bible for proof, it’s been changed around so much that it’s moot as evidence.2. “Miracles” do not count as evidence, as random anomalies in the natural world happen. Plus we’re trying to keep things factual, not using fantasy-world magic. This includes “visions,” near-death experiences, supposed afterlife-visits, or supposed visits by “angels”.

3. Can not use personal opinion as that’d be too biased. Only hard, actual facts are usable.4. Try to have evidence for all the points you make. I.e post URLs to sites or quotes that prove your point.So, have at it then. PROVE that “god” exists, without delving into all the fantasy-crap

In a response, I succinctly alerted him to On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al. so that he could have his non-Bible, non-miracle cake and eat it too.

Here I wanted to consider his challenge point by point: He does not merely ask for evidence or even just proof but to “PROVE; without a shadow of a doubt.” Well, this is quite a tall order and you can certainly imagine that no matter what you come up with, he could always simply retort that it still leaves the shadow of a doubt.

Being a skeptic, I could even argue against a global appearance of God by claiming that aliens or the Illuminati were attempting to manipulate us via holograms or some such thing.

In fact, the criterion of the challenge means that the challenge is simply unanswerable as there is nothing that we can “PROVE; without a shadow of a doubt”: not God, not subatomic particles, not that you are not merely a brain in a vat being manipulated to believe that matter is solid, not that ______________ (fill in the blank). We do not believe in that which we believe due to having things proved “without a shadow of a doubt.”

Also, whose doubt; mine or his?

1. Can not use the bible for proof, it’s been changed around so much that it’s moot as evidence.

This is a common misconception and one that I will refute via this succinct essay: The Book of Eli – the movie and the Bible and anything that will end up in my Bart Ehrman archive.

2. “Miracles” do not count as evidence, as random anomalies in the natural world happen. Plus we’re trying to keep things factual, not using fantasy-world magic. This includes “visions,” near-death experiences, supposed afterlife-visits, or supposed visits by “angels”.

This is fascinating as he admits that “miracles” do indeed occur but that they are random natural anomalies. I have long argued that I did not see how atheist could deny what is referred to as miraculous events for this very reason. For example, why deny that Jesus resurrected? He could have had a genetic mutation or experienced a rare combination of natural laws that could have brought about His resurrection.

The problems with this view are, at least, twofold: 1) he is paining with a broom and making it so that supernatural miracles would be simply impossible, by definition; he defines them out of existence—they are generically discounted as mere “random natural anomalies” without having been determined to be such and 2) he is not providing any evidence that a claimed miracle was actually random natural anomaly; this is merely a “faith” based materialistic presupposition.

Note that he is asking for proof of a fantasy-world magic God without allowing fantasy-world magic evidence such as verifiable, if there be such things, “‘visions,’ near-death experiences, supposed afterlife-visits, or supposed visits by ‘angels.’” You see, he is asking for proof without providing proof that proof is required. The challenge is also tantamount to asking for wet proof of a dry object? Do we seek physical proof of a non-physical being? In this regard, the essay On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al. may be useful.

3. Can not use personal opinion as that’d be too biased. Only hard, actual facts are usable.

Again, the challenge is premised upon his “personal opinion” that proof “without a shadow of a doubt” is required. Moreover, the fact that he does not define what it means to offer such proof means that he is virtually forcing one into expressing nothing but personal opinion. He needs to define proof that would count as not leaving “a shadow of a doubt” and also define “hard, actual facts.”

I took care of # 4 in my essay cited above. As to his last statement challenging us to “PROVE that “god” exists, without delving into all the fantasy-crap” he is: 1) Excluding certain sorts of evidence, as in his 1, 2 and 3.

2) And, he is delving into “fantasy-crap” even whilst condemning and not allowing “fantasy-crap.”

To elucidate these: 1) Obvious and elucidate above. 2) Any and every, all worldviews, philosophies, theologies, concepts or even the hardest of hard sciences ultimately come down to being based upon certain axioms which are assumed, intuited and thus, not evidenced, not proven nor provable. These are properly basic beliefs which no worldviews, philosophies, theologies, concepts or even the hardest of hard sciences proves. For example, nature cannot account for nature, we cannot reason to reason via reason. Since at the bottom of whatever view he holds rests upon a foundation which is held by “faith,” is un-evidenced, unproved, assumed, intuited, accepted as fact, his worldview is also rooted in metaphysics and is thus “fantasy-crap.” For an elucidation of this last point see the parsed essay:

Atheism and Science – Is There a Relation?, part 1

Atheism and Science – Is There a Relation?, part 2 – On the Difference Between Science and Philosophy: Massimo Pigliucci

Atheism and Science – Is There a Relation?, part 3 – On the Difference Between Science and Philosophy: Richard Dawkins

Overall, the challenge is answerable but the answer will surely not be accepted as “PROVE” is undefined and the proof has to rise to the level of not leaving “a shadow of a doubt.” This is tantamount to asking someone to “PROVE; without a shadow of a doubt” that yellow tastes like 264.

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

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

We now continue and conclude considering the Greer-Heard Forum of 2008 AD as we focus on the participation of Dan Wallace (Dallas Theological Seminary) and Bart Ehrman (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) as I glean from the reports of the forum written by Ed Komoszewski from the theology blog Parchment and Pen; part 1 and part 2.

One of Bart Ehrman’s favored claim to substantive and problematic variants, or corruptions, (one of what he admits is very, very few) is Mark 1:41 which reads, starting at v. 40,

Now a leper came to Him, imploring Him, kneeling down to Him and saying to Him, “If You are willing, You can make me clean.” Then Jesus, moved with ______________ [something], stretched out His hand and touched him, and said to him, “I am willing; be cleansed.”

Ehrman claims that the reading—the one that he likes and then finds evidence to support—is that Jesus was “moved with anger” while most translations read that He had “compassion” or “pity.”
Firstly, let us not deny that anger is a virtue when, and only when, it is properly expressed about the proper situation and at the proper object—righteous anger, as it has been termed (see the essay On God’s Odd Attributes).

Furthermore, considering that Mark 1:41 is one of Ehrman’s pseudo-silver bullets, James White notes (Bart Ehrman’s Consistent Inconsistency):

I do not agree with Ehrman (or with Dan Wallace, who agrees with Ehrman’s arguments on this verse) regarding Mark 1:41. I just don’t believe D is a sound enough witness to support overthrowing the entirety of the rest of the manuscript tradition. But it is interesting to note that in Florida, when I first met Bart Ehrman, I informed him that I would be presenting a paper on Mark 1:41 and Hebrews 2:9 the next day in the afternoon. He did not bother to come. Now, if I were debating someone, say, on the doctrines of grace, and they informed me that just a few hours before our debate they were going to be presenting a paper, say, on John 6:37-45 and Ephesians 1:3-11, I think I’d show up if invited, for the obvious reason that I’d like to know what my opponent’s position was going to be.

I would do that even if I felt quite confident in my position, simply for the sake of the audience that would be listening to the debate. The better you understand the person you are dealing with, the more useful the debate will probably be. But, clearly, I debate for very different reasons than Bart Ehrman.

As for the text itself, sure there is righteous anger but why would Jesus be angry within this context? The answer to the question of context is also a clue as to the original reading. As to the question of textual criticism, James White notes that James Bentley wrote the following in Secrets of Mout Sinai (1986, pp. 132 and 133):

in the first chapter of Mark’s Gospel we are told of a leper who says to Jesus, ‘If you will, you can make me clean’. Codex Sinaiticus continues, Jesus, ‘angry, stretched out his hand and touched him, and said, “I will; be clean”‘. Later manuscripts, perceiving that to attribute anger to Jesus at this point made him appear, perhaps, too human, alter the word ‘angry’ to ‘moved with compassion’.

White comments:

The text referred to is Mark 1:41, which reads in a [“a” refers to Codex Siniaticus], “Moved with compassion, he stretched out His hand and touched him, and said to him, ‘I am willing; be cleansed.'” I have a photo-mechanical reprint of a in my library, prepared by [Constantin von] Tischendorf himself, and I checked it as well: it reads splagcqeis, “moved with compassion.”
Bentley is simply in error. There is a textual variant here that reads “angered,” but it is found in D and a very small number of other less important witnesses. I suppose it is possible Bentley simply misread a textual source somewhere, but to start out your demonstration of purposeful emendation with the scholarly equivalent of a face-plant in figure skating is ominous.

Back to Dan Wallace at the forum:

we could move toward greater certainty by observing what Matthew and Luke did with Mark. He used Mark 1:41 as a test-case, and enlisted Ehrman’s treatment of this in his argument. Here the text either says that Jesus was compassionate or angry when he healed a leper. Wallace noted that Matthew and Luke don’t have either word, but since they drop references to Jesus’ anger elsewhere while maintaining statements about Jesus’ compassion, Mark almost surely said that Jesus was angry in this place. If he had said that Jesus was compassionate, Matthew and Luke would surely have mentioned it. To borrow a cliche, their silence was deafening.
But Wallace showed that, by using one of Ehrman’s favorite examples, textual critics are presupposing that we can get back essentially to the author’s words in order to do both redaction and textual criticism. Even Ehrman assumed this! And the fact that Wallace used an example from Mark—which Ehrman underscored as a book that had very few early copies, and thus could have been changed radically before it was found in our extant copies—showed that Ehrman’s skepticism about Mark in particular was unfounded.

Wallace even mentioned p. 135 of Misquoting Jesus, where Ehrman had argued that even though we don’t have any second century copies of Mark, we do have books written within twenty years of Mark that utilize Mark…

As for getting back to the originals,

Wallace then discussed the concrete example of the relation of P75 to Codex B. He noted that although B came 100-150 years later, it was not a copy of P75 because it frequently had older readings than those found in P75. This meant that, since these two manuscripts are very close in wording to each other, both had a much older ancestor.

Let us end with something I touched upon in the essay Accurately Quoting Bart Ehrman, part 4 Bart Ehrman does not bother reading criticisms and does not respond to them except when he reads them and responds to them—the evidence is that he tends to ignore his critics. Let us consider his scholarly honesty further as he writes:

I understand the arguments of people like James [White] and Dan Wallace, but sometimes, you know, they don’t make sense to me, even though I intellectually understand them. Dan Wallace, whom he keeps quoting, insists that in fact differences don’t matter in the manuscript. Well if the differences don’t matter, why is it that he is undertaking a major project dealing with Greek manuscripts…Of course they matter!

Dan Wallace responded:

In brief, every point you make about what I hold to is false. And you know this. When we dialogued at the Greer-Heard Forum last year, you raised most of the same points. You accused me of thinking that textual variants are not significant. Yet, at one point in our dialogue, you came significantly closer to accurately representing my views. You said, “Dan pointed out that 99% of these variants don’t matter. Only one percent matter.” Yes, I would say that as much as 1% of the textual variants are both viable and meaningful. But the only criterion I was using on whether they were significant was that of meaning in the text. Yet just a few minutes later in our dialogue last April you asked, “Why study these textual variants if they don’t matter?…That point was meant to suggest that I considered the variants to be as unimportant as these protases suggested.

Bart, you’ve repeated that same accusation in your debate with James White earlier this year, and you’ve repeated it in this thread. But my response to you at the Greer-Heard Forum was this: “I never said that they didn’t affect anything. I said they don’t affect major doctrines. I do think that they affect the interpretation of the text and very seriously so, and that’s why I spend so much time in textual criticism. That is exactly the reason I do it, which is the reason that you had suggested…I am baffled as to how you could misrepresent my views so completely when I said TO YOU, before 800 witnesses, that the variants do matter…

you have reversed my argument. I have argued that no viable variant affects any cardinal doctrine. So, my point is that textual variants are very important, but not so important that a cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith depends on suspect texts. You agreed with me on that statement at Greer-Heard. But I never said that it would not be important if somehow several books of the NT were suddenly lost! I agree with you: that would be extremely important and a tragic loss. Where do you get the idea that I thought otherwise?

James White adds that “He was plainly corrected in Florida [during their debate], to be sure.”

To be sure indeed, Bart Ehrman is emotive, iconoclastic, rebellious, studious, exciting and celebrity yet, his conclusions, being premised upon emotional preferences, leave much to be desired and offer much to be discredited.

‹ Bart Ehrman’s Millions and Millions of Variants, part 2 of 2 up

Following on providing the free online text of Alvin Plantinga’s Warranted Christian Belief I thought to make the interested reader privy to Truthbomb Apologetics’ provision of links to various free ebooks on various topics.

These include:
Mike Licona, What to Say to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses when they Knock on your Door

Ron Rhodes, Challenge of the Cults: Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response

Darren Hewer, The Historical Reliability of the New TestamentMoreover, they list various others in the following posts:
Free Apologetics E-Book Library

Free E-books from John Piper

Featured Resource: Pleaseconvinceme.com Free E-books

Also, see Apologetics Press’ ebooks

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

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

We now continue considering the legend of Bart the gnostic hero Ehrman as he attempts to discredit the Bible and Christianity.

Let us consider an example of Ehrmanian logic:
Bart Ehrman provides an example of just how difficult it is to discern the true, real and originally intended meaning of a text, if not what they text states in the first place. He makes the point that the Greek New Testament manuscripts were written in all caps, without punctuation and without any spaces between the letters (this is true only of minuscule – scriptio continua manuscripts) and offers the following example; what does this say?:

GODISNOWHERE

Does it say:

GOD IS NO WHERE

Or:

GOD IS NOW HERE

Obviously, these are two very different meanings and yet both were derived from the same sentence. It is interesting that Bart Ehrman very, very often mentions, or boasts, that many or most people have never even heard of any such information as that which he is amongst us to reveal. Well, if anyone is falling for such claims and also lacks good old fashioned common sense then sure, I could see someone being flummoxed by this. Must it really be pointed out that the context dictates what a text states and means? That the overall intention of the text is indiscernible is simply giving in and giving up the hermeneutical fight before it begins.

Let us now delve into a particular example of variants which are also said to grow from little to the insertion of entire stories and finally, forgery as Bart Ehrman, the hero of the story, is said to have proved that “At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries” 1:

these copies are all different from each other, sometimes in big ways, most of the time in little ways…

manuscripts have hundreds of thousands of differences in them. A lot of them are just misspelled words that don’t matter much, if anything, but there are big differences too…

This entire story, a beautiful story that in some ways you could argue is the favorite story of people who read the Gospels, wasn’t in the Gospels. It’s only found in the Gospel of John, and it’s not found in the earliest and best manuscripts of John. So scholars for hundreds of years have known that it wasn’t part of John, it was a story that was added later by scribes because it’s found only in our later manuscripts…

There are a few big ones. And there are lots of little ones.2

Playing Ehrman’s advocate; let us imagine that we grant that this story does not reflect an actual event engaged upon by Jesus, why is this a “big one,” what does this story reflect that is nowhere else in the New Testament? The point of the story is, at least, threefold: 1) An attempt to trap Jesus in a false dichotomy. 2) Jesus’ love and offer of forgiveness.

3) The spirit of the law overrules the letter of the law.

1) Jesus defeated falsely dichotomous logical fallacies. For example, in Luke 20:22-25 we find that Jesus is asked, “Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar or not?” If He answered “Yes” He could have been reported to the Jewish leadership as He cold be said to be siding with the Gentile oppressors. If He answered “No” He could have been reported to the Roman leadership as He cold be said to be encouraging the breaking of Roman law—and Romans cared about the Pax Romana—Roman Peace over all. Thus, Jesus did the following:

But He perceived their craftiness and said to them, “Why do you tempt Me? Show Me a coin. Whose image and inscription does it have?” They answered and said, Caesar’s.

And He said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and to God the things which are God’s.”

2) There are simply too many references to list but simply considering a couple suffices: Matthew 20:34, “Jesus had compassion on them.” Mathew 9:36, “He was moved with compassion.” Luke 7:13, “He had compassion on her.” Matthew 9:2, “Your sins are forgiven you.” Mark 2:5, “Jesus said…your sins are forgiven.”

Luke 7:47, Jesus said, “Her sins, which are many, are forgiven.”

3) Consider what happened when “Jesus went through the grain fields on the sabbath day. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck the heads of grain and to eat.”

But when the Pharisees saw, they said to Him, Behold, your disciples do that which it is not lawful to do on the sabbath day.
But He said to them, Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him, how he entered into the house of God and ate the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath and are blameless? But I say to you that One greater than the temple is in this place. But if you had known what this is, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice,” you would not have condemned those who are not guilty. For the Son of Man is Lord even of the sabbath (Matthew 12:1-8).

Indeed, the spirit of the law is the parchment upon which the letter of the law is written.

Thus, even if we discard this particular story we do not lose any doctrine big or small or any words or deed of Jesus whatsoever.

Now, let us consider more grandiose claims such as:

important doctrines like the divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity, which weren’t the original teachings of Christianity…

The earliest Christians appear to have thought that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. In Jewish thinking, the Messiah was not a divine figure, but was a human being chosen by God to fulfill some grand purpose on earth. But over time Christians started thinking Jesus was more than just a great human or a human chosen by God. They began to think of Jesus as the Son of God in a unique sense, so that by the time you get toward the end of the New Testament period, the end of the first century, there are people thinking of Jesus himself as in some sense God…

At least 160 years after Jesus’ death is the first time you have anybody talking specifically about the Trinity.3

In stating what was the “Jewish thinking” Bart Ehrman is actually offer merely one of very many option (which I will not discuss here since I have evidenced various in Jewish Messianic Concepts). While a Jewish belief that the Messiah would be God in the flesh is certainly hard, if not impossible, to come by let us not imagine that God is limited to that which Jewish theology would and would not allow Him to do.
By its own admission, by the fact that they expect a Messiah and one that would bring a new Torah, Judaism admits that it is an incomplete revelation without the Messiah. Within the New Testament it is quite evident that the apostles had to take baby steps in slowly understanding who Jesus is. As for the reference to the “Son of God” indeed, since context determines meaning it is quite right to state that Jesus was the “Son of God in a unique sense.” Jesus actually preferred to refer to Himself as the “Son of Man” which some have un-contextually taken to mean that He was emphasizing His humanity. Yet, that is not what this term, in this sense, means. In correlating the concept of the Messiah with the concept of the “Son of Man” we hearken back to Daniel who wrote,

I saw in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. And dominion and glory was given Him, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations and languages, should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed (Daniel 7:13-14).

Thus, we see that the Son of Man is a divine figure whose dominion is “everlasting” which is also reminiscent of the prophecy in Micah 5:2 which affirms that the one “whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity” will be born in Bethlehem.
As for the Trinity, I wonder if he in not obfuscating between the belief in the divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit on the one hand and when the theology began to be iron out and systematized or even when the Latin word Trinitas was introduced by Tertullian (for discerning the Trinity in the Bible see here). A mere two examples of triadic or Trinitarian allusions:

Unfortunately the dating of the Didache is wide in range from 50-120 AD to the shorter estimate of 65-80 AD. It repeats the triune “formula” found in Matthew 28:19, “the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”—the singular name and not the plural names.

Sometime between 105-115 AD, Ignatius wrote an epistle to the Magnesians in which he stated,

…Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time [Ch. VI]….the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit…to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit [Ch. XIII]…

Furthermore,

Ehrman says that no one accepts everything in the Bible. Everyone picks and chooses. He cites some New Testament’s references to the role of women in church as an example. In the first book of Corinthians, Ehrman says, the Apostle Paul insists that women should remain silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:35-36).

In the 16th chapter of the book of Romans, Paul’s attitude is that women could and should be church leaders — and he cites women who were serving as deacons and apostles in the early church, Ehrman says.4

If everyone picks and chooses this would include Ehrman himself, right?
As for women remaining silent in church, I have exposited that text and concluded that it is a convenient misinterpretation (find the exposition here).
I am not certain how “I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you receive her in the Lord, as becomes saints, and that you may assist her in whatever business she has need of you. For she has been a helper of many, and of myself also” amounts to “women could and should be church leaders” or what “leaders” means but indeed, women in the Old and New Testament are judges, own businesses, own land, are prophetesses, deacons, teachers, etc. (see here for details).

Dr. Norman Geisler is president of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina.
He holds a B.A. and an M.A. from Wheaton College, a Th.D. from William Tyndale College, and a Ph.D. from Loyola University in Chicago.

He co-authored I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist along with Frank Turek (of Cross Examined).

You can find various book by both of them at these links:
Norman Geisler books.

Frank Turek books.

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

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter
page, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.

For some reason old news is new news when Richard Dawkins continues to insist that he knows how to raise your child better than you.

Ian Dunt reports the latest in “Dawkins: Faith schools are child abuse,” Politics.CO.UK, 22, Sep 2009.

I could not help but note two objections to the article by commentators,

Why is Richard Dawkins described as an ‘infamous’ atheist?…

What do you mean by describing Professor Dawkins as “the infamous athiest [sic] and scientist,” Mr Dent [sic]? Why, “Infamous” exactly? Betraying some prejudice of your own, perchance?

How is that even a question?

Well, let us get to the rather short article and see if we may discern a reason or two:

Some faith schools constitute an act of child abuse because of the way they rid children of freedom, Professor Richard Dawkins has said.

Speaking at a fringe meeting at the Liberal Democrat Conference in Bournemouth, the famous atheist and scientist told delegates that it was unacceptable to indoctrinate children into any religion or belief system.

“I’m in favour of religious education,” he said, responding to a question from the audience.

“I’m in favour of children learning about religion and its role in history.

“What I’m passionately against is indoctrination. That is wicked, that is evil, that is child abuse,” he continued.

“You would never describe a child as a Keynesian child, but we all ascribe to this anomaly where religion can be hung round the neck of a child.”

Professor Dawkins was promoting his new book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, at an event organised by the British Humanist Association (BHA).

To the interested reader: I commented on The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution here.

I have dissected, discredited and corrected various such notions as those expressed by Richard Dawkins in the article various times and in various ways; please see the section, Atheist Child Rearing

But did I miss something?

The article does not refer to Richard Dawkins as “infamous” but as “famous.”

Do not get me wrong, having some form of (self-diagnosed) dyslexia I can understand one person reading “infamous” for “famous.” I can even understand two people doing it.

But what I cannot understand—and I quoted the entirety of both comments—is that if one refers to Richard Dawkins as “infamous” then my oh my, it is the makings of outrage, it is prejudice!

Yet, Richard Dawkins referring to religious schools as wicked, evil and child abuse is simply erudite elucidations.

As I have demonstrated time and time again that:
1) Richard Dawkins does not seem to consider that referring to children by their parent’s religion is a cultural phenomena and not a theological one.

2) That therefore, religions have specific ceremonies for the child turn adolescent or adult makes their own decision to actually become part of the religion.

3) That Richard Dawkins asks whether there is “something to be said for society stepping in”1 to stop you from raising your children according to your faith.

4) Lastly, that his ultimate goal is not merely the liberation of children from those wicked, evil and child abusing schools and parent but that his interference “might lead children to choose no religion at all.”2

So go on and be the human shield in front of Richard Dawkins, even when nothing was fired at him except your own misreading, and express all of the outrage that you wish. But in the meanwhile more and more sensible atheists are shunning the New Belligerent Atheists.

The American Humanists Association is one of the groups that collected donated money to fund self-serving ad campaigns instead of helping people in need during a time of worldwide recession. The 2008 AD ads read “Why believe in God? Be good for goodness’ sake” the 2009 AD ads read the same with the addition of “No God? No Problem!” (see the bus ad/billboard archive).

In this segment I will consider part of the AHA’s 2008 AD explanation for the ads which is entitled “Interesting Facts You Might Not Know.” I will consider one of their facts: “Why not believe in a god?” and consider another in part 3, namely: “Without a god, why be good at all?”

This fact is elucidated thusly:

“Why not believe in a god?
There’s no universally agreed-upon definition of God, description of what God does, or list of things God wants humans to do. Different cultures, faiths, religious denominations, theologians, and ordinary people have held wildly varied beliefs for centuries. In fact, people aren’t always talking about the same thing. So it’s difficult to know where to start any rational or useful exploration of the subject.

Most definitions of God aren’t scientifically testable. They are philosophical abstractions, logical contradictions, imprecise spiritual notions, or subjective feelings. So there appears no way to show that this or that particular god idea is true or false, or even makes much sense. Moreover, most people don’t even want their god idea to be scientifically testable, since that might result in it being falsified.

Those definitions of God that are scientifically testable, such as the very humanlike and limited god ideas of children and ancient peoples, have always lacked evidence. The Santa Claus idea also falls into this category [emphasis in original].

Let us parse this elucidation before considering the next. It appears that the lesson learned is “There’s no universally agreed-upon definition of God…So it’s difficult to know where to start.” Therefore, since it is difficult why bother; just do not believe in a god.

Would this argument be accepted with regards to any other issue with which humans deal? “What son? Your schooling is difficult? Well, just quit.” Or why not, since it is difficult, just go ahead and choose one, or more, god(s) out of a hat?

Furthermore, “Most definitions of God aren’t scientifically testable.” But why is scientific testability the criteria? Is it scientific testable that scientific testability is the ultimate, if not only, cogent epistemology? If not, then the criterion fails its own criteria and eternally loops in a cycle of circular illogic (for how atheists restrict their thinking by appealing to “science” see Atheism and Science – Is There a Relation? part 1, part 2, part 3).

They have not established why we must adhere to their search for God parameters. If we do not know whether there is a God we do not know for what sort of evidence to look. If, for example, God is non-physical should we expect a non-physical being to give off, or leave behind, physical evidence? Do we look for wet evidence of a dry object? Science deals with the natural so why is it being called upon to investigate the supernatural? In fact, when science begins to uncover evidence of God it must change in order to accommodate the new evidence.

Try this, “There’s no universally agreed-upon definition of _________ (fill in the blank)…So it’s difficult to know where to start.” It just so happens that we do have a place to start: natural theology, or general revelation—inferring the existence of a creator and even particular characteristic of this creator from nature. This is one way to show that this or that particular God idea is true or false, or even makes much sense. So, to be fair, they are stating that “it’s difficult to know where to start” well, you can start at the parsed post On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.